Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Pyramid (Re)Genesis Plan

orion pyramid recovery vault

  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#196    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:44 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 15 May 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

SC:  Oh, mia cupla - I am just waiting for one of the usual suspects in this Forum to jump up and correct me with the exact half-life term in order to win some petty point.  Like I actually give a hee-haw.  Get a half-life!

Dr Hawass speaks from EXPERIENCE.  He has probably sent more artifacts to be C14 tested in C14 labs around the world than anyone alive.  


Yes, rather than allow others to be confused by your inaccuracies, this should likely be addressed.

The original 14C half-life utilized by Libby was 5568 +/- 30. Further research with more sophisticated technology prompted the readjustment of this figure to 5730 +/- 40. This readjustment is known as the Cambridge half-life. This readjustment occurred in 1962, fifty years ago. Due to the number of early dates that utilized the Libby figure, a number of modern radiocarbon dating facilities such as Beta Analytic still utilize the Libby figure in order to maintain record consistency. Conversion is accomplished by a simple multiplication of 1.03.

As to Hawass, he spent much of his latter years in the field in administrative positions. It is rather unlikely that your bold statement could be validated, particularly given the work of Bonani, et. al. In addition, the dating associated with Egypt is merely a small fraction of the global total.

Given that the support for your rejection of radiocarbon dating is based primarily upon the demonstrably inaccurate "perceptions" of YEC/fundamentalist sources and a loose quote by Hawass, your position in this regard is not at all well substantiated.

Another aspect which has been frequently brought up by kmt_sesh and others is your lack of familiarity with the cultural concepts of the population under consideration. The following paper provides some interesting understandings in regards to the spatial conceptualization of said culture:

Though the genealogical principle was not unimportant in Egypt-especially for kings18-the nation regarded itself as a "kingdom of the middle." Though there is no word for the notion as in China, the notion is there as an idea.19 It finds expression, for instance, in words and rites connected with the Egyptian kingship. It is asserted repeatedly that the authority of the pharaoh legitimately reaches out from this center of the world to the ends of the earth, even though in fact-that is, politically-his power is not realized everywhere.20 The idea finds expression in art as well. On a sarcophagus from the fourth or third century B.C., there is a representation of the world as a disk, the center of which is formed by a ring consisting of the provinces of Egypt.21 The purpose of the religious type of early Egyptian cartography is a geographical orientation in the after-world, and hardly anywhere else did such a remarkable geography, or "topography of the otherworld" (J.-F. Sprockhoff),

It is at this point that we observe an interesting bifurcation in the ancient Egyptian's attitude toward the spatial world. He developed at least two different sets of spatial categories, one mythical and one empirical (if we include here the mathematical concept of space in the empirical notion thereof). Both sets of categories could be used at the same time, and the Egyptian felt no need to reconcile them; he could speak on an empirical and on a mythical level almost simultaneously, even if both utterances were seemingly contradictory.

For the Egyptians, as for so many other peoples, space has its ultimate boundary in the primal waters that surround the world, constantly jeopardizing life.45 In Papyrus Carlsberg I, II, 19-31 we find: "The distant area of the heavens is shrouded in darkness and gloom. Its borders are not known toward the south, north, west, and east. These are founded in the primal water.... The sun does not rise there. Nor is this land known to gods and spirits. There are no rays of light there."

Much could be said about the significance of directions in mythicospatial thinking, for the directions of the compass not only have geographic significance but gain their accent, their specific meaning, from the thinking of a "mythical geography." Cassirer rightly emphasizes: "East, west, north, and south are not essentially similar zones which serve for orientation within the world of empirical perception; each of them has a specific reality and significance of its own, an inherent mythical life."

"The four heavenly directions together mean the ordered world," says Brunner in the case of Egypt.42 "The division of the world into four parts represents a primary mythic form." 43 The main directions together imply the totality of the cosmos-even if there is no one word for "cosmos," as in Egypt-a totality representative of the correspondence striven for between man's action and the structure, or order, of the whole universe.

Hence the religiously determined image of the world-in India as well as in Egypt, and certainly in many other cultures-is a spatiomythical symbol of an intellectual understanding of, and feeling for, a religious sphere of existence, expressing in its own manner what the narrated myth does in temporal categories. Thus a systematic "geography of religions" with any degree of methodological reflection and any attempt to take into account the historical as well as the social, economic, and ecological dimension of religion, will not be able to disregard the significance of the concept of space in its general structures as well as its culturally determined peculiarities. Its meaning as a symbol expressive of a religious reality entails the actual problem in terms of hermeneutics, or Wissenschaftstheorie.

Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt: Considerations toward a Geography of Religions. Hans-J. Klimkeit. History of Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May, 1975), pp. 266-281.The University of Chicago Press.

You would also appear to once again avoid the topographical constraints of the Giza Plateau, in addition to not adequately addressing the royal constructs that predate G1, G2, and G3. Nor have you adequately addressed the other pyramid constructions that occurred under Djedefre and possibly Nebka. None of the above would be consistent with a "unified plan".

.


#197    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:45 PM

Quote

SC: Who said it would? Bauval? So what – different theory. See my post above.

Point being, the layout of the Queen's Pyramids have nothing to do with Orion's Belt except for there being three in number. Otherwise it's meaningless to claim they're even relevant.

Quote

SC: East-west (setting on horizontal on the south-west) ca.10,460 BCE. Vertical (i.e. UP-DOWN, i.e. South-North, i.e. perpendicular) ca.2,500 CE. I have always stated the two sets of queens reflect the two culminations of the Orion’s Belt stars ca.10,460 BCE and ca.2,500 CE, in writing and in my diagrams. And if you actually take the time to read the theory proper you will see that the Sphinx intersects precisely the midpoint between these two culminations, which brings us to the relevant timeframe.

I've read your stuff and it is what it is: Bullscheise. The two dates have no relevance to AE civilization as there were no Ancient Egyptians c.10,500 BC nor, obviously, are there any now. Another meaningless point on your part.

Quote

SC: The only validation that is immediately relevant to this thread is that Lehner concurs with my own view (and rejects Ed Krupp’s view) that the AEs would have placed the southern part of their country to the top of a map, that their worldview regarded SOUTH as UP.

I challenge you to pass your theory on to Dr. Lehner directly and actually receive any validation directly from him for any portion of it and then post the results here. Because your own 'interpretation' of what he believes is meaningless. But I'm betting you won't do this because you know he'll tear it to shreds.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#198    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,326 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:01 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Posted Image


Has anyone addressed that the Orion picture is at proper scale, yet the pyramid picture is clearly compressed in the Up-Down/North-South direction. Appears to be almost a ration of 1 to 2. Does that ruin the direct correlation?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#199    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:11 PM

It also appears stretched east-to-west.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#200    Kantzveldt

Kantzveldt

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2011

Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:24 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 May 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

SC: Yes - right!



The diagrams you keep showing of Orion circa 10,500 Bc are a complete irrelvance then and all that OCT, fair enough.  So that leaves us with your date of 10,460 BC and the minimum culmination of Orions ascension and this you relate to the setting of the belt stars thus in the SW




Posted Image
Uploaded with

Very hard as to see why that should be of any relevance, you relate this to the three satellite pyramids of G3 yet the orientation is completely differant, nor do you take into account that they maintain their respective differances, thus if they can represent the three main pyramids why have the proportions radically altered for the satelllite pyramids...?


#201    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

Hi Everyone,

Well, here we all go again. (Well, at least some of us I hope).

Much of this discussion has concerned itself with the age-old debate over the Giza-Orion concordance and whether or not the Gizamids present a fair and reasonable depiction of how the Belt stars appear in the night sky. The individual primarily responsible for creating the original piece of disinformation regarding the concordance was Dr Ed Krupp of the Griffiths Observatory in Los Angeles.  Here is what Dr Krupp had to say (I will present shortly why he was wrong) when he first saw the Orion-Giza concordance in Robert Bauval's book, The Orion Mystery:

Quote

”According to The Orion Mystery, the three largest pyramids at Giza were built together as a monumental representation of the Belt of Orion. This "revelation" has been parroted without critical study in other books, television programs, and even an advertisement for astronomical software.

Readers of The Orion Mystery are shown an aerial photograph of Giza paired with a picture of Orion's Belt. (Source). [See referenced image below from Bauval’s book].

Posted Image

There is something wrong with these images, however. The picture of the pyramids is oriented with north at the bottom of the page. Orion's Belt, on the other hand, has north at the top. To make the pyramids match the sky, you have to turn Egypt upside down. In fact, all of the book's maps of Egypt are published upside down, with south at the top.”

SC: Presented with south at the top of the page - what’s so wrong with that?  In Dr Mark Lehner’s The Complete Pyramids, p.83, we find the following image presented of Saqqara:

Posted Image

As can be seen from the direction indicator in the top right corner of the image (above), Dr Lehner has presented Saqqara with - lo and behold - SOUTH to the TOP of the page (just as Bauval had done with his image of the Giza pyramids in his book).  If Ed Krupp thought Bauval was wrong to do such, why then do we find Dr Lehner doing the very same thing (albeit with a different set of pyramids at Saqqara)?

Dr Lehner explains:

Quote

”…If we look at the map of Saqqara [above] with south at the top as the ancient Egyptians viewed their world….” (Emphasis mine) - Dr Mark Lehner, TCP, p.82

So, there you have it folks. That's why Lehner inverted his map (and why Bauval was quite right also to have done so). And should there be any doubt, in page 101 of the same book (TCP), Dr Lehner also presents a diagram of Dahshur with – once again – SOUTH at the TOP of the page.

Indeed, had Dr Lehner presented a map of Giza using the same AE worldview, it would have looked not unlike this (SOUTH to the TOP of the page):

Posted Image

Which, of course, is not unlike the manner which Robert Bauval had originally presented the Giza pyramids in his book, ‘The Orion Mystery (SOUTH to the TOP of the page, thus):

Posted Image

In short, folks, Dr Ed Krupp’s original argument that the Giza pyramids would have to be turned 180 degrees in order to match with the Belt stars is fundamentally wrong and completely bogus for he takes no account of the opposite worldview of the Ancient Egyptians. He is ethno-centrically projecting modern astronomical convention onto an ancient culture and he was quite wrong to do that.  The images presented by Dr Lehner in his book The Complete Pyramids proves this and proves that Bauval was quite right to present his image of Giza with south to the top of the page – thus matching the AEs worldview.

The individuals on this Forum and elsewhere continue to trot out this bogus argument in order to tarnish, obfuscate and disinform.  Folks - do not let them fool you. Indeed, what you will find (if you look carefully through this thread and, undoubtedly elsewhere) is that when any mainstream authority in any way gives any kind of support to something an alternative writer is claiming, the Egypt-apologists here and elsewhere will distance themselves from the mainstream authority that made the 'offending remarks'.  Rather than being a little more open-minded, they knee-jerk react to discredit the authority in question.  It would actually be quite laughable if wasn't actually so serious. Some of them have done this earlier in this thread with one of the world’s foremost Egyptologist, Dr Zahi Hawass.  I now fully expect that some others here will now distance themselves from another of the world’s leading Egyptologists, Dr Mark Lehner, simply because some of his scholarship lend credibility to the Giza-Orion debate in terms of the long-running orientation argument.

One of the other things the Egypt-apologists like to indulge in in order to cast doubt over the Giza-Orion concordance is say things like, “The sky and ground are not a perfect match”.  The spatial distance, they will argue, and the angular offset are different. Well so what.  This very minor difference has been known about for the best part of 20 years. But you do not ever hear these same people arguing that the ‘square pyramids’ are not exactly square – there are in fact small errors in all of them.  But they never make such an argument because the error is so small that we can extrapolate or infer the intent of the builders. Well this is much the same with the Giza-Orion concordance – the error is so small that we can infer the intent.  With the two end stars cantered on G1 and G3, we find that the middle star misses G2 centre by a small fraction (see image below):

Posted Image

But the intent is, nevertheless, quite clear.

Notice also in the above image that a circle circumscribed around the three most outer points of the Giza pyramid field finds the centre of that circle almost precisely on the centre of the middle Belt star, Al Nilam. This is not coincidence although the Egypt-apologists on this Forum would like you to think that it is - just because they SAY it is.  Note also how with this circle inscribed around the three most outer pyramid corners, the Sphinx somehow manages to find itself sitting right on the circle’s perimeter.  Again the detractors will want you to think this is all one big coincidence – again, just because they SAY it is. They are, of course, simply kidding themselves.

One of the other tools the usual Egypt-apologists on this Forum and elsewhere like to do is say things like, “The image has been squashed to make it a better match with the Belt stars.”  This is utter baloney and it is simply used by these individuals in an attempt again to smear and cast doubt – and they continue to do this in any way they can. For example, the drawing I used to demonstrate the Giza-Orion concordance (see below) has been described as being “…stretched east-west…”, “…is it at proper scale, the picture is clearly compressed…”  Obfuscation thrown into a barrel of red herrings in the hope that it’ll create mud that sticks.  That is how such Egypt-apologists here and elsewhere operate.  The drawings I have used are merely for illustrative purposes.  The important point about the concordance is that when looking at Orion due south (as the Gizamids are aligned) then Mintaka will always be highest and to the right. Al Nitak will always be lowest and to the left.

Posted Image

Also, to understand better how reasonable the Giza-Orion concordance actually is, then this paper is a good start.

From the above cited paper:

Quote

” In the light of the previous results one can conclude that the OCT, in its simplest version (see sect. 2), is not incompatible with what expected for the stars of the Orion Belt on the basis of naked-eye astrometry and photometry, as well as of the stellar evolution theory. Therefore, there are no astronomical/astrophysical arguments to reject the hypothesis that the main Giza pyramids would represent the monumental reproduction on the ground of the Orion Belt…”

And before I finish off this post, here is something else the Egypt-apologists will tell you is all just coincidence (this also explains btw, why there is the small error in the placement of the middle pyramid to match its corresponding star centre): Giza-Orion Blueprint

Any good hypothesis should be able to make predictions. The above blueprint hypothesis predicted – as a result of the geometry involved – that the smallest pyramid at Giza (G3) would be very slightly rectangular in shape (the vast majority of pyramids were built as square structures).  Petrie, for example, gives lengths of three of the side of G3 to within and error of about 6 inches of each other – almost square.  It seemed that the hypothesis was not as accurate at predicting as I had hoped.

However, in ‘The Complete Pyramids’, Dr Mark Lehner (who undertook the most recent survey of the Giza plateau with the ‘Giza Plateau Mapping Project’) writes:

Quote

”Menkaure's Pyramid was named 'Menkaure is Divine'. Smaller than his predecessors' pyramids at Giza, it has a base area of 102.2 x 104.6m (335 x 343 ft).” - Lehner, Dr Mark, 'The Complete Pyramids', p.134


Again, the Egypt-apologists on this Forum and elsewhere claim that the above outcome is all simply the result of some remarkable coincidence - just because they SAY it is. And once again, they are simply kidding themselves. They make such baseless remarks simply because they cannot truck with anything that lends any support whatsoever to the Giza-Orion concordance.

Indeed, not a single one of them has risen to ‘The Challenge’:

Quote

The Challenge:

If you really think the Giza-Orion Blueprint (presented above) is all just one almighty coincidence, then try this:

Get three friends to each draw a random square or rectangle on a piece of card. Cut-out these three squares/rectangles. These are your three random bases. Carefully mark the centre of each of the cut-out bases with a black pen.

Now scatter your three cards (bases) randomly to the floor. Observe the pattern made by the three centres of these three cards. You may move one of the bases fractionally in any direction. (Afterall, G2 centre – though extremely close - is not in its exact on-the-ground location with respect to the centre star of the Belt asterism, so fair's fair).

Now, using these three centres, follow the procedure outlined in the Giza-Orion Blueprint and try and recreate your three bases in the order and rotation they have fallen and in the shape and proportions they have been made by your three friends. (You might find it helpful to photograph the arrangement with a digital camera, upload the image into Powerpoint or some other application and attempt the procedure that way. Saves a lot of time crawling about the floor).

If the first arrangement of the centres doesn't produce a match in orientation, order, shape and proportion to the three bases created by your three friends then throw your three card bases to the floor again - and repeat. Keep repeating until you find a match. What you will quickly realise, is that you would not have enough life-times to find such a match.

And yet, quite incredibly, this is almost precisely what we have at Giza! If the Gizamids had been defined in the manner I propose in my presentation but had been laid out on the Giza plateau, say, in a straight east-west line and in a different order and orientation, it would have been infinitely more difficult for me - or anyone - to discover this simple technique or to find the correct star asterism used to achieve those proportions. However, the fact that the builders actually laid down the Gizamids in pretty much the same way that their proportions, shapes and orientations were designed helped immensely to discovering the technique and the correct star asterism that was used to define their relative size and layout.

When you can come back with a match in your attempt at this, then and ONLY THEN will you have any grounds to claim this is but a “coincidence”. Incidentally, the odds against you succeeding in this challenge are something in the order of around 280 TRILLION to one (at the outside)!


Best wishes,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#202    Sensible Logic

Sensible Logic

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • If I alter the reality to fit the fantasy I can prove anything.

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:06 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 22 May 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Hi Everyone,

Well, here we all go again. (Well, at least some of us I hope).

Much of this discussion has concerned itself with the age-old debate over the Giza-Orion concordance and whether or not the Gizamids present a fair and reasonable depiction of how the Belt stars appear in the night sky. The individual primarily responsible for creating the original piece of disinformation regarding the concordance was Dr Ed Krupp of the Griffiths Observatory in Los Angeles.  Here is what Dr Krupp had to say (I will present shortly why he was wrong) when he first saw the Orion-Giza concordance in Robert Bauval's book, The Orion Mystery:

Best wishes,

SC

Re-posting your work does not make it anymore valid than it was the last time you posted it.  You seem to be ignoring Kantzveldt's post directly above yours that shows the actual alignment of Orion's belt at the time you refer to.  So here is that view with the modern day view for your perusal and comment.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by Sensible Logic, 22 May 2012 - 07:10 PM.

The sheer odds of a civilization advancing, developing space travel, deciding to search our little corner of the galaxy, arriving at just the right time and actually helping us is so huge, you would have a greater chance of winning several lotteries in a single year. - SensibleLogic

#203    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,326 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:45 PM

And did not answer the question why the pyramids in the diagram are compressed North to South? I appears only to be to allow the correlation lines to match exactly. If the pyramids were displayed in their natural dimensions, then the Orion line and the Pyramid line do not match, unless you turn one or the other by several degrees.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#204    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,431 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:16 PM

View PostSensible Logic, on 22 May 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Re-posting your work does not make it anymore valid than it was the last time you posted it.  You seem to be ignoring Kantzveldt's post directly above yours that shows the actual alignment of Orion's belt at the time you refer to.  So here is that view with the modern day view for your perusal and comment.

Posted Image
Posted Image

He ignores everybody's  posts, which is why this thread is as good as dead.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#205    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:59 PM

View PostKantzveldt, on 20 May 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

The diagrams you keep showing of Orion circa 10,500 Bc are a complete irrelvance then and all that OCT, fair enough.  So that leaves us with your date of 10,460 BC and the minimum culmination of Orions ascension and this you relate to the setting of the belt stars thus in the SW




Posted Image
Uploaded with

Very hard as to see why that should be of any relevance, you relate this to the three satellite pyramids of G3 yet the orientation is completely differant, nor do you take into account that they maintain their respective differances, thus if they can represent the three main pyramids why have the proportions radically altered for the satelllite pyramids...?

Hi Everyone,

Sorry I have not replied sooner - a couple more radio interviews.  And thanks to those who have emailed me with your questions (and support).  Hope my answers have helped.  Okay - to matters at hand.

SC: Kantzveldt - it might help matters if you actually set the local horizon to Giza at 60m elevation.

And why do you choose a random day of the year - 25th October?  It is much more logical to select a significant day of the year such as in my example below which uses the winter  solstice:

Posted Image

As you can see folks - the Belt stars are much more horizontal when you apply the proper parameters and they correlate extremely well with the arrangement of the three so-called Queens pyramids of G3 (see image below).

Posted Image

Now someone raised a rather silly point. Does the above image mean that there were ancient Egyptians in ca. 10,460 BCE as some on this board stupidly seem to think I am saying?  Of course not!!  It's simply three structures identifying the minimum culmination of the Belt stars just as there are a second set of three structures identifying the maximum culmination of the Belt stars in our future ca.2,500 CE (i..e. almost 500 years from now).  Do these same people who asked about the AEs in 10,500 BCE (at min culmination) think I am saying that there are ancient Egyptians at Giza 500 years from now (i.e. a max culmination)?  Well of course there aren't so why ask this silly question?  Answer: to obfuscate; to cause confusion.

The purpose of the two sets of Orion's Belt culmination markers (i.e. the two sets of 'queens pyramids') is simple.  I'll try and give an example.

Imagine you wanted to write down the year you were born and add on 500 years and also the year you were born less 500 years.  So if you were born in say 1980 then plus 500 years would give the date 2480 and minus 500 years would give 1480.  Were you alive in 1480?  Of course not.  And 2480?  Of course not!  These are simply dates marking your birth year plus and minus 500 years.  The midpoint between these two years (1480 and 2480)  is the significant year i.e. your birth year.  The same applies to Giza.  The two sets of so-called Queens Pyramids mark two years (i.e. ca.10,460 BCE and ca.2,500 CE).  The important year is the midpoint year marked by the Sphinx which 'points' to the precise midpoint between these two marker dates (or calibration dates).  There is no other significance to the two years ca. 10,460 BCE and ca.2,500 CE other than to serve as calibration dates.  No one is saying that the AEs existed in these times.

Hope that is clear for you.

Best wishes,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#206    Kantzveldt

Kantzveldt

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2011

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:55 AM

Hi Scott,

   i chose the date for the begining of the Khoiak Festival, which some Egyptologists consider to have related to Orion
  • day 22 Ploughing the Earth
  • day 26 Sokar festival
  • day 30 raising the Djed-pillar


  The advantage to knowing the correct season is that at Khoiak Orion would have been visible from rising to setting, whereas at the winter solstice that is not the case. so there isn't any reason to relate Orion to the Winter Solstice, but anyway, as i pointed out previously the orientation is that they are setting in the South West and would thus appear to be more or less describing the South-North axis along the horizon , were the three satellites of G3 are of course aligned due East-West.


Also as you pointed out the three stars of the asterism maintain their relative positions to each other whilst the relative positions and proportions of the three satelite pyramids are very much differant than that of the main three pyramids, yet you attempt to suggest they represent the same asterism.


You appear to have lost sight of what the original premise for Orion dating was, Gerald Massey posited when dating origins of Egyptian civilization and Giza was still an open question, that the site could date to 10,500 Bc, when the equinox was in Leo and Orion at minimum culmination and that Giza reflected this first time.  When that was overtaken by actual dating evidence, Bauval and Hancock conjectured that perhaps this dating was wrong or that there had been an earlier civilization that had left behind some sort of 'blueprint' across the world, now you are saying that it is the midpoint between these suggested  minimum and maximum culminations, otherwise known as the begining of the age of Taurus, and that the Sphinx somehow indicates this...?!?...,...you appear to be losing the plot such as it ever was

Edited by Kantzveldt, 25 May 2012 - 11:57 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users