Hello Everyone,

Here are some links to my latest work. These are in Flash and Powerpoint formats. Constructive comments/criticisms are most welcome.


http://www.thegizaoracle.co.uk/Flash/GPW-I...gent-Design.swf

http://www.thegizaoracle.co.uk/gc-totg.pps

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CreightonS2.php


Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

I did not know UM was a free advertising service.

--Jaylemurph

just what i thought. hahaha. UM should make new rules that when you should make an advert. you should have atleast 80+ post. ^^

Jayelmurph,

You'll be glad to know I am in no way advertising a book. My book is not available to buy. These are straightforward FREE file downloads of my theories for discussion.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Looks to me like you drew a circle first then ftted in the artefacts to line up. Why would anyone want to line anything up with the backside of the Shinx?
Incredulous... you'll probably make a fortune when you publish... sooo sad

But you still want people to go there, right?
And you're using this site to encourage them to do so.

--Jaylemurph

Keithisco: Looks to me like you drew a circle first then ftted in the artefacts to line up. Why would anyone want to line anything up with the backside of the Shinx?

SC: Nope. Any 3 points will define a circle. At Giza we find FOUR points defining the circle. We then find the centre of the circum,scribed circle is within 0.02% from the centre of the middle pyramid of Khafre. This simply cannot be the result of mere chance and demonstrates INTENTIONAL DESIGN.

To put this into some kind of persepctive - it is akin to drawing a circle around the 3 most extreme corners of New York City and, having done that, then discovering that the Empire State Building is within 0.02% of the centre of the circumscribed circle and, at the same time, finding the Statue of Liberty sitting on the circle's edge. That we find this occurring at Giza with SO FEW structures is all the more striking and reason to consider that this is no matter of simple chance. We have to consider that this is the product of intentional design.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

what do you mean i advertize cape breton island every chance i get and look oops did it again.

you are a Challenged mate .... talking about place you live in is not ADVERTISING
this is ADVERTISING because the TOPIC STARTER posted LINKS to the FILES he wants us to DOWNLOAD.... for all i know it could be virus or something ....

if MR.gizaoracle POSTED his IDEA here it would be a whole another story... but he didn't he advertised his work and posted his site link
http://www.thegizaoracle.co.uk which is NOT allowed on UM (at least not in this section) therefore this is in fact and advertisement and will be reported as such to the Admins...


P.S. Its ADVERTISE not advertize

uhuh
from the other thread which you slagged off Robert Bauval in

so is this book available for free download
I really don't see why anyone would bother paying money for it as it is by your own admission from someone who knows nothing about Egyptology at all

my ghast is truly flabbered....yes I see it all now.my god its amazing. And do not concern yourself with the fact that the great pyramid fails to line up correctly...it has obviously moved a few feet thru seismic vibration.

Before we get into Geometry 101, 3 points will not necessarily describe a circle (I suggest you put three points in a straight line and try it).
Describing a circle and placing objects at the rim of that circle will always make them equidistant from the centre, a useful idea for fighting land battles to give maximum coverage, the Greeks and Romans were not averse to using such techniques. I still want to know why the Sphinx' backside is important in all of this? And if they were intended to be equally distant then the question is why? To show respect? Actually you said it yourself, draw a circle in any rich archaeological area and I am sure many things will fall on the edge.

...and the Sphynx got tired of sitting in the same spot so moved forward to stretch it's legs? Not much of a theory this one is it?
Oh... and of the "4 MOST significant " points, what is G3C?? I can see a large pyramid that isn't on the circle (seems pretty significant to me)!

Until someone decides what the Pyramid's really are and mean it is all just conjucture.

I found your links very interesting. I've never accepted the traditional belief that the Egyptians built the pyramids. I've read all the books, studied all the detail, and believe there is much more that goes much further back in history than what is taught today. I wish they would conduct excavations and find the information buried and share it with the world. Fascinating - thanks for sharing.

Absolutely. Which is why my work through the Greater Orion Correlation Theory (GOCT) and Giza Precession Wheel Theory (GPWT) attempts to offer an explanation using the available evidence i.e. the Pyramids themselves and - in particular - the anomalous information they present to us that Orthodox explanations fail to offer plausible answers to.

I am not saying my theories are the asnwer but they do explain much. Thanks for looking.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Posting links to your articles for non-commercial purposes so that people can discuss them is not advertising, and is certainly preferrable to copy and pasting huge quantities of text in to forum posts.

No product is being sold here and there is no commercial incentive involved, no web site is being advertised either.

For those of you who have commented on this, if you feel that a topic is unsuitable or violates the rules please hit the report button as oppose to attacking the poster.

Thankyou.

Thanks Sura....


GizaOracle,

Thanks for your ideas. Was just wondering how this stuff ties into the Lay Lines? Interesting stuff...

Everyone else... if OP decides to post ideas, then let it be. He took the time and effort to share his thought just to get slammed? And who cares what each persons post count. Higher post counts does not mean you have more knowledge. Many type jibber jabber to get a higher post count.

Enemy

Edit: Also, how this points tie into the other from around the world? Like how the pyramids, stonehenge, Great Pyramid at Chac, azca lines, Yucatan Hill cities, Machu pichu, cuzco, etc.?

Hi NME,

Many thanks for taking time to read my work. Appreciated. Regarding Ley Lines - I do not discount in any way that the Pyramid shape is 'tuned' in some manner to the vibrational harmonics of the Earth. Many researchers have looked into this and come up with some pretty interesting ideas and some with some compelling evidence. I am not sure that my own theories tie into Ley Line theory - my work essentially considers the arrangement of the structures as indicating a precessional cycle - a calendar acting as an 'early warning system'.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Right. Does anyone else find the positioning fo the circle (y'know the "4 most significant points" part) a little bit arbitrary? Scratch that, you're basically fitting the evidence to your theory. Those aren't the most significant parts of the site. And everyone knows it.

And whats all that "intentional design" twaddle? I'd be very suprised if the design and layout of the pyramids wasn't intentional.

Emma,

First of it looks like you have only looked at the first link. What do you think the chances are of drawing a circle around the 3 most extreme points of say New York City and finding that:

a} The centre of the Empire State Building ends up within 0.02% from the centre of your circumscribed circle and;

b} The Statue of Liberty ends up sitting on the edge of the circumbscribed circle.

Some coincidence, eh? This is precisely the circumstance we find at Giza. What's more, as I have said previously, that this is achieved at Giza with so few pyramid structures is all the more compelling. Orthodox Egyptology does not accept the idea of an overall or masterplan for the Giza complex. This Giza Precession Wheel demonstrates, through simple mathematics, that an overall plan or 'Codex' was in place. It is worth noting also that this circle is impled by the relative positioning of the satellite pyramids thus:

Pyramid # Satellites

Menkaure 3
Khafre 1
Khufu 4

These, of course, represent the first 3 digits of the Pi constant, 3.14. And Pi implies a circle. To discover the purpose of the implied circle requires you to look at my other link.

http://www.thegizaoracle.co.uk/gc-totg.pps

Regards,

Scott Creighton

what does the architecture of New York have to do with Giza
sounds a bit straw man doesn't it ?
what textual evidence is there to support your claims ?
what is the supposed point of this calendrical warning ?
why did you find it neccesary to claim that Bauval was wrong ?
how long have you studied Egyptology ?
What did the Hall of Maat say about your claims ?
how many copies of your book have you sold from advertising it at internet forums ?
why was it neccesary for you to self publish (wouldn't a real publisher pick it up ?)

Whilst it interests me to some extent to know what Robert Bauval thinks of my work and what Hall of Ma'at thinks of my work, I present it here on this forum to determine what forum members here think of my work.

My personal qualifications have NOTHING to do with my ability to comment on the Pyramids at Giza and attempt to explain the anomalies that so befuddle orthodox Egyptologists. Do you ask Robert Bauval what his credentials are for making such comments?

Now, if you have anything constructive to comment on my work posted here then I am happy to listen and discuss with you, otherwise you can conclude this discussion at an end.

Regards to you,

Scott Creighton

You are really stretching credulity now...PI???? Since when did PI = 4.13? (I used a different starting point to you!) AND... why dont you include the number 2? You make such a big deal of having 4 points on a circle?? I fact there are infinite points on a circle so your PI theory is just that "Pi in the sky". Include only the information you want to prove your own theory!!

....Or 134, 143, ... I know this. The pyramid of Menkaure, however, is the key to the Codex which is why I start at that point, hence 3-1-4. These 3 digits could be a simple beacon to imply the circle for the Giza Precession Wheel. Of course, had you actually looked at the rest of my work, you would have known this.

Yes, there are an infinite number of points around a circle but that's hardly the point. The point of the circle I have demonstrated is that the 3 points chosen are the only 3 pyramid corners (i.e. the circle touches these 3 points) that will enclose all the Giza pyramids within the circumscribed circle. Having chosen these 3 points we find that the centre of the resulting circle falls within 0.02% of the centre of Khafre, i.e. the middle pyramid and centre of the Giza Precession Wheel astronomical clock (see my second link). And the Sphinx ALSO ends up sitting on the circle's edge!

Regards,

SC

Hence.. why not 3.41 (ignoring 2 completely). I looked at your "work" but the second link didn't "work" - Hey, there's that number 2 again!
And I suspect it is only you that assigns these specific numbers to each point. What if the Egyptians assigned totally different numbers, not knowing PI? AND. 3.14 is the roughest approximation to PI and will lead to enormous errors on the scale that you speak of.
I want to see your maths before accepting the 0.02% error as well because 0.02% means many different things dependent on the scaling.

what is the real point your trying to make here, I have been trying to read the post but it jump's to much and is hard to follow......
Also you lost me on the last link as i 'm a member of that site also and i find alot of it to be BS.....

Keith: Hence.. why not 3.41 (ignoring 2 completely).

SC: Menkaure is the key. Count from Menkaure, left to right 3-1-4. It's possibly a beacon to imply the circle.

I clicked on the 2nd link okay. Perhaps try clearing your web browser's cache.

Regards,

SC

so....mmmmmmmmmm.... you have NO qualifications what so ever... and you expect us to drop the theories made by people who have studied pyramids 30-40 years, because YOU(someone who has never studied EGYPTOLOGY) believe that they are wrong ?
i go along with that but you would have to present some HARDCORE evidence to support your claims in order for me to "CHANGE" my opinions...

you however have failed to do so.. and you ideas are FAR FAR FAR Fetched. I mean its like you saying Newton was Wrong Gravity doesn't Exist lol (I need to stop giving people ideas)

Why is Menkaure the key? Why go left to right? Why dont you ask the questions that I posed re numbering systems etc?

One does not require specific qualifications to have a moment of inspired thought. Einstein was an office clerk.

The Pyramids are my evidence. The pyramid concavities on Khufu and Menkaure are my evidence. The Precessional motion of the so-called Queens Pyramids depicting max/min culmination of Orion's Belt is my evidence. The missing Queens of Khafre are my evidence. The PTs are my evidence. The implied mathematics is my evidence.

Good day to you.

SC

in 1896 Einstein entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree.

During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin. He became a German citizen in 1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his citizenship for political reasons and emigrated to America to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton*. He became a United States citizen in 1940 and retired from his post in 1945.


are you claiming to be as qualified as Einstein was
or that only people who work as a clerk can have other professions ?
you weren't too clear

As stated already, if you view the second presentation you will discover why I consider Menkaure the key. Way too long to epxlain here. Are you saying it is impossible to consider that the satellites might be depicting a mathematical beacon 3-1-4? If so, no matter - it's not as if this 'beacon' is a big part of my theory.

Moving on............

Regards,

SC

you don't have a theory you have an unproven hypothesis
and I might add no support from anyone qualified
the amount of evidence against your hypothesis is overhwelming and this has been pointed out to you time and time again on several other boards that you have posted this on
moving on.......

Appolyon: ...the amount of evidence against your hypothesis is overhwelming...

SC: Easy to say - a lot more difficult to prove. Unless, of course, you feel YOU can do so. Feel free - have a go.

In spite of my work being scrutinised endlessly with the diehard debunkers of the world on other sites, there has NEVER been a killer blow to my ideas - just a number of people running around with inflatable hammers and even more inflated egios. And what do these professional debunkers end up doing when they can't defeat my ideas? Why, they change the goalposts and then insist that the burden of proof is on me. So why then do they even bother trying to debunk in the first place?

Good day to you,

SC

"IMPLIED" mathematics...I have now managed to open your second link where one slide states "It is a matter of scientific fact that one degree represents approximately 72 years" that is based entirely on your unprovable assumption that the start date is 10,550 BCE and the end date is 15,370 AD, ie one complete revolution of this clock =25,920 years. Not entirely sure that Egyptian maths was up to this extraordinay detail based on the limited observations that they would have been able to make. Perhaps a knowledgable person on this forum can help here. From here onwards the "Fantasy" slide show degenerates into complete nonsense because it is based on complete nonsense.
I really have no knowledge in Egyptology so I again ask the members of this forum to tell me whether the pyramids were faced with sandstone to make them smooth, so covering these concavities?

Truth requires neither qualifications nor credentials. In some fields
it is virtually impossible to make new discoveries without extensive
knowledge. This becomes less true in fields where the facts them-
selves are more ephemeral and their interpretation more important.

It seems obvious to even casual observers that the mathematical
and astronomical knowledge of the ancient Egyptians is being under-
estimated in the modern age.

Wherever the truth lies it will be found by examining the evidence,
not the examiner.

Arguments such as these simply have to stand by themselves.

youre hypothesis revolves around the circular path of Mintaka over a period of time yes ?
Mintaka doesn't have a circular course
this you would know if you were qualified in astronomy
but as youre not
moving on

Oh I agree
but this truth doesn't rely on facts
it relies on a complete misunderstanding of Astronomy and Egyptology
it requires that everything that has been established by examining empirical data be discarded
e.g. the egyptians didn't design the pyramids
Mintaka doesn't traverse the sky that the data says it does
geometry is wrong (i.e. objects moved on a circular path don't follow a circular movemnent
so thats that one out isn't it
Cladking clearly you don't understand the background of this hypothesis
its whats known technically as pyramidiocy
this term isn't so much a description of the theorizer as it is the idea they have come up with
heres a brief definition

http://skepdic.com/pyramidiocy.html
when you look further into the ideas of Scott Creighton you soon start to see that they are based purely on his own imagination and not on any understanding of any particular discipline
and thats the only truth here

Keith: "...our second link where one slide states "It is a matter of scientific fact that one degree represents approximately 72 years" that is based entirely on your unprovable assumption that the start date is 10,550 BCE and the end date is 15,370 AD, ie one complete revolution of this clock =25,920 years...."

SC: First of all, glad you have now managed to open the second link. Second - thanks for taking the time to look over it. I do mean that because it is very important to me that people such as yourself question what I have presented with a critical eye.

I obtain the precessional half-cycle dates from the relative placement of the 2 sets of so-called Queens. (I simply call these SPs - Small Pyramids). The alignment of these structures aligns horizontally in the SW in 10,550BC and then on the East horizon (flipped 90 degrees) in 2,400AD (not 15,370 AD as you have stated). These locations of the 2 sets of SPs represent the maximum and minimum culmination of the 3 Orion Belt stars and give us a half-cycle of approx 12,950 years x 2 = 25,900. This is very close to the Platonic or Great Year of 25,920 years.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_year

This would give a precessional shift of 1 degree every 72 years. This may be alluded to with the slopes of the GP which are given as 51.84 degrees. Taken as 5184 years we then find the square root is 72 years. There is also some argument that the slopes of Menkaure were also at one 51.84 degrees, the same as the GP.

Keith: Not entirely sure that Egyptian maths was up to this extraordinay detail based on the limited observations that they would have been able to make.

SC: I am not, nor ever have, said or even implied that the AEs knew of any of this information. They were merely following a plan passed down from a source that DID understand all of this. The AEs of the 4th Dynasty did, however, construct them in my opinion. But they followed an ancient plan.

"The design of the structures that Imhotep raised for Djoser at Saqqara seems to hark back to a remote past, deliberately recalling the occasion of the ‘First Time’, when creation arose in the primeval marsh, to which Djoser would return on death."

And regarding other temples such as Edfu and Denderah (with its astronomical clock):

"They (the temples) were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep."

- Aldred 'The Egyptians'

Keith: I really have no knowledge in Egyptology so I again ask the members of this forum to tell me whether the pyramids were faced with sandstone to make them smooth, so covering these concavities?

SC: I have looked into this myself. These features in these two pyramids are quite unique in all Egypt with only one other pyramid having them. (They had to practice them afterall). I have not been able to find any evidence that would indicate that the casing stones for these two structures would not have been similarly designed to concord with the underlying limestone concavities.

Keith: From here onwards the "Fantasy" slide show degenerates into complete nonsense because it is based on complete nonsense.

SC: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. What I would ask you to really consider though is whether or not my theory fits and makes sense of the observable facts. I believe it does. In short my theory explains:

1} The function (purpose) of the Great Sphinx as a calibating device.

2} It explains the function of the 2 sets of SPs (Queens).

3} It explains why there are no SPs at Khafre's pyramid in spite of him having 5 wives. It is only necessary to show us the maximum and minimum culmination of the Belt Stars to determine the correct triad of stars - there is no need to show us in-between points, hence no SPs at Khafre's Pyramid.

4} It explains Ed Krupp's imfamous Kruppside/Down argument. Menkaure HAS to be at 212 degrees (hence south) to match its celestial equivalent, Mintaka in 10,550BC.

5} It makes sense of and explains the function of the bisectors (concavities) of Khufu and Menkaure which, hitherto, have been inexplicable to Egyptologists.

6} It explains why Menkaure is markedly different from the other pyramids and shows how it is unique.

7} It explains the function of Menkaure.

My theory may not be correct but I do contend that it matches and makes sense of the observable evidence that is presented to us at Giza.

Regards,

SC

"I obtain the precessional half-cycle dates from the relative placement of the 2 sets of so-called Queens. (I simply call these SPs - Small Pyramids). The alignment of these structures aligns horizontally in the SW in 10,550BC and then on the East horizon (flipped 90 degrees) in 2,400AD (not 15,370 AD as you have stated). These locations of the 2 sets of SPs represent the maximum and minimum culmination of the 3 Orion Belt stars and give us a half-cycle of approx 12,950 years x 2 = 25,900. This is very close to the Platonic or Great Year of 25,920 years.


This would give a precessional shift of 1 degree every 72 years. This may be alluded to with the slopes of the GP which are given as 51.84 degrees. Taken as 5184 years we then find the square root is 72 years. There is also some argument that the slopes of Menkaure were also at one 51.84 degrees, the same as the GP."

I apologise for not realising that you were talking about a half cycle, in which case this part of your theory is more consistent. As a stickler for accuracy though I have to say that based on 72yrs=1degree then the half cycle comes to 12,960 years - 10 year discrepancy on your figure, but I do note that you state 1degree = approximately 72 yrs. The accurate figure that you really should state is that 1degree = 71.944 years (a small but cumulative error). Otherwise you dont have a circle.

I shall look at the presentations again out of curiosity, and see if your other assumptions can be borne out. The important thing is to get the maths absolutely correct, as this whole theory rests on that premise.

Keith: "...The accurate figure that you really should state is that 1degree = 71.944 years (a small but cumulative error). Otherwise you dont have a circle."

SC: Yes, you are right. I rounded up to 72. I did this because, as stated in my previous post, the figure 72 is derived from the square root of 5184 which is the angle of the GP and is once thought to have been the intended angle of Menkaure.

Thanks for spotting this.

Regards,

SC

Apollyon: "...youre hypothesis revolves around the circular path of Mintaka over a period of time yes ?.."

SC: No. Absolutely not. You are confusing the circle of the Giza Precession Wheel as being the supposed orbit of Mintaka. IT IS NOT. This circle represents the 'clock face' of the Great Year, not a star's orbit!

Apollyon: Mintaka doesn't have a circular course

SC: I have NEVER said it did. What we are shown through the relative placement of the two sets of so-called Queens - if you will look closely - is the start and end of a precessional half-cycle (i.e. when these 3 stars are at maximum and minimum culmination). We are not shown any in-between points to indicate that Mintaka's orbit is, of course, eliptical. Indeed, we don't even NEED to know the shape of the orbit - just its start and end positions because this is all we require to know to be able to work out which triad of stars is being alluded to since NO OTHER triad of stars moves across our skies in this manner. It can only be the Orion Belt stars. Do you understand this important difference?

Apollyon: this you would know if you were qualified in astronomy

SC: As stated previously - my qualifications have NOTHING to do with this discussion. Do you dispute Robert Bauval's credentials for writing about Egyptology and Astronomy?

Appolyon: moving on

SC: Indeed..............

Apollyon: ...it requires that everything that has been established by examining empirical data be discarded e.g. the egyptians didn't design the pyramids...

SC: Provide me with categorical, unequivocal, empirical evidence that proves - beyond doubt - that the AEs designed the groundplan at Giza? Furthermore - do you purport to have found proof that the AEs actually designed the pyramids themselves? References please.

The evidence of my work is right there in front of your eyes at Giza. It's called the pyramids. I shall ignore the rest of your post as mere bluster.

SC

Could we please focus on discussing the theory being presented here and not on personally discrediting the person who is putting forward the theory. Thankyou.

you really know nothing about this subject don't you
thats why everyone that does so far has laughed at your silly claims
here
Egyptology 101
Pharoah Djoser ruled 2630-2613 built a step pyramid at saqquara

Pharaoh Sneferu ruled 2613-2589 BCE built the maidum pyramid which collapsed halfway through construction

because of this the other pyramid he was working on had to have its design changed and so it is know known as the bent pyramid

then having learned from these mistakes he built the first true pyramid known as the red pyramid

in all Sneferu utilised more limestone than any other pharoah in his buiding program. he was succeeded by his son Khufu
Pharooh Khufu ruled 2589-2566 BCE built the great pyramid at Giza

after he died his brother Djedefre came to power he built the pyramid of Djedefre (2528 -- 2520 BCE) which because it was far away from Giza was not maintained properly so its all but ruins today

then the pyramid of Khafre, djedefres brother (2520 - 2494 BCE)

then the pyramid of menkaure Khafres son(2490 – 2472 BCE).

then came Shepseskaf (2472-2467 BCE)
now he because he was the last king of the fourth dynasty which had bankrupted itself building bigger and bigger monuments changed his mind about having a pyramid and had a mastaba (manufactured tomb) instead.

it seems that he realised that having a burial place that was so obvious was like clanging the dinner bell for tomb robbers
the next dynasty (family) of pharoahs did in some cases build more pyramids but they were never to the same scale as what had gone previously because they had learned from the mistakes of the previous dynasty
the whole point of having a pyramid as a tomb was that your body could lie undisturbed so that the spirit (Ka) could live on in heaven.
so after this point it was quite common for pharoahs to build a small pyramid and then have themsleves buried somewhere else hidden in a rock cut tomb
now there were earlier pyramids than those of the fourth dynasty but none of them survive to this day
you can read about them here
http://www.narmer.pl/pir/pir1_en.htm
so for you to say that the Egyptians didn't do it is to ignore all the evidence
its nonsense really and I hope you can see that now
its also quite clear that your theory doesnt account for Djedefre building his pyramid at Abu Rawash which ihe was hardly likely to do if as you say they were all building to some plan from a lost race
of course I realise that this is probably the first time you even heard the name Djedefre so i'll give you a few days to come up with something to cover that error (btw its been ten years and Bauval is still stuck on that one)

now do you accept that Egyptians designed the pyramids
as for them designing the ground plan at Giza
the onus is on you to prove if they didn't do it who did
clearly the pyramids were an original design by the egyptians because we can see the trial and error from the earliest step pyramids to the true pyramids that came hundreds of years later
and so far
youre not even close
you haven't told everyone here yet who you think designed and built the pyramids
so come on out with it
which alien race was it ?

so much bluster
I have forgotten more about this subject than you have ever known
and from the way you do research more than you are ever likely to know as well
Pete Vanderswet says hi by the way
we're all still waiting for you to counter his evidence
been about three months so far that you have completely ignored the facts that totally destroyed your theory when you first posted it
and while we're on the subject has Bauval gone anyway closer to agreeing with you yet (I noticed you slagged him off in your previous thread at this forum so I guess not)

as for your sudden claim that Mintaka does not have a circular course, you have several times stated that the Menkaure queens pyramids represnt Mintaka and the position of them moving through a circle to their position as the queens pyramids of Khafre is what shows that Giza is a warning calender
here are your words from another forum

so you clearly are claiming that the stars of Orion move in a circular orbit around the earth no matter how many times you claim you arent saying that when you get called on it
here is the same evidence that you were presented with previously

which clearly shows that Mintaka does not move in a circular manner
so there goes your theory doesnt it
now I quite expect that like the last time you were shown this you will say something like

which in other words mean youve been busted by someone who does know what theyre talking about and you no longer wish to discuss it
Scott you don't even believe that Pyramids were built by egyptians yet you think you can come up with evidence completely from your own imagination that explains one of the biggest mysteries of the ancient world.
thing is. theres no mystery at all to be solved by your intellect, because the Pyramids at Giza were built in sequence by the Kings of the fourth dynasty taking advantage of the topography of the plateau itself

its also quite obvious that you are performing here the same as you have at every other forum
when one thread dies you post another
then when that dies you post another
etc etc

now I can appreciate that you have a book out and are trying to carve yourself a career as a pseudohistorian Scott I really can
but save it for the people dumb enough to believe it eh

Spare me the Egyptology 101. I did not ask you for a history lesson in AE. What I asked was for you to provide unequivocal proof that the AEs DESIGNED the groundplan at Giza AND provide unequivocal proof that they DESIGNED the pyramids there. Where's your proof? Where's your plans?

Now, in case you haven't picked this up yet - I have always accepted (and have gone to great lengths to make this clear in numerous postings) that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty actually built the structures at Giza and did so according to their own cultural/religious beliefs. I am not and never have contested this. They DID NOT, however, design the groundplan there. How do I know this? Because the astronomical information presented to us there is way beyond their mathematical / astronomical ability. They merely followed an architectural plan "... which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep." - Aldred, The Egyptians. Now, if you are saying to me that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty DID posess this level of mathematical / astronomical understanding, then you are contradicting your entire corpus of AE knowledge. Unless, of course, you know different and can provide the proof that such advanced knowledge WAS available to the AEs. Can you provide such?

They were building from an ancient, sacred plan. Naturally to implement the plan was going to take many many generations. But first they would have to learn how to build pyramid structures. And this is precisely what we see - an evolution of the pyramid from simple mastabas with sloped sides, to the step pyramids. And sometimes they would get it wrong - vis-a-vis the so-called Bent Pyramid. They were experimenting and learning before they built the first true pyramid. Having achieved this feat and with confidence brimming, the time had arrived in the 4th Dyansty to finally implement the sacred Codex at Giza. Which they did impeccably. Of course, the plan was rigid and beyond the power of the Pharaoh to alter. Most of the 4th Dynasty would continue with the plan but others, such as Djedfre, would not. Perhaps Djedfre wanted the freedom to design his own personal monument and considered Giza too restrictive for his own grand design? There are any number of reason that could be cited as to why Djedfre decided not to continue with the Codex.

After completing the codex the urgency for pyramid building would gradualy diminish. Afterall, the sacred codex had been completed - the Gods had be appeased. Pyramid building would slowly decline as would the quality of the structures. All perfectly explainable and understandable on the premise that it had all started with the desire to recreate the heavens on the Earth - an ancient plan that was now complete.

I have already answered your question regarding Mintaka's orbit in a previous post. Go read it.

Nice pics btw.

SC

so in other words
when you asked for proof that the egyptians designed the pyramids you were joking
backfired didn't it
and you haven't answered one single question
what about your earlier claim that Mintaka was represented by the queens pyramids which move in a circular fashion around the plateau
what about Djedefre
what about the fact that because of your total lack of knowledge (by your own admission) in both egyptology and astronomy your convoluted hypothesis will never be accepted by anyone who knows what theyre talking about as you clearly don't

this is the usual point where you no longer respond to posts because youre outclassed isn't it
been here before twice now havent we Scott


first time youve seen most of them isnt it

As an observer, you repeated what so many before you have repeated, what you were taught. You did not offer proof that the Ancient Egyptians designed the ground plan at Giza.
convince me too and I am a skeptic. There are too many things about the pyramid's that do not add up

Technical Director Merle Booker of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America performed a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone in 1978. Consisting of 33 quarries, the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study concludes: “Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements.” And mainstream archeology states the Ancient Egyptians did all of this work with bronze chisels from one are two quarry sites in twenty years time has to be a joke, Right?.

Thank you.
People in general have a habit relating to these things. If you can't disprove the theory, discredit the author.
In this entire thread I did not find one argument that would disprove what Scott is saying.