Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Scott Creighton

Analyse This

296 posts in this topic

Hello UM,

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

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this will be entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a lot of us use our phones to view um and your link to your self named website with an instant download does not work on my phone as well as others I'm sure. And please had I been aware it was a site that would download files that I have no knowledge of their actual content I would have avoided your link entirely.

With that said could you spell out the contents of this amazing new find that will change everything we know about ancient Egypt. Much obliged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a lot of us use our phones to view um and your link to your self named website with an instant download does not work on my phone as well as others I'm sure. And please had I been aware it was a site that would download files that I have no knowledge of their actual content I would have avoided your link entirely.

With that said could you spell out the contents of this amazing new find that will change everything we know about ancient Egypt. Much obliged.

My computer has no problem with the link but it's hard toi follow since

I can't control the speed.

I'll try again later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My computer has no problem with the link but it's hard toi follow since

I can't control the speed.

I'll try again later.

were you ever able to download that book from the Oriental institute about pre dynastic Egypt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82824&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

One of your other posts said bauval got it wrong. I haven't read through everything your now proposing but I would like clarification please. Did something change from the last book you told us about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

were you ever able to download that book from the Oriental institute about pre dynastic Egypt?

Yes. Abramelin was kind enough to eMail a link to me and it worked.

It was exactly what I expected. People keep confusing assumptions and

interpretation with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Abramelin was kind enough to eMail a link to me and it worked.

It was exactly what I expected. People keep confusing assumptions and

interpretation with evidence.

That's cool just wondering if you ever got a chance to peruse it. Well I suppose that's as far off topic as we should go so... have a good night cladking.

I hope Scott will be able to address my posts tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello UM,

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

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

So then, who planned it?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one Scott, seems likely to me.

Orion followers were called Nephilim.

Orion was used for ancient time-keeping.

His belt pointed to Sirius.

Richard Hinckley Allen lists many folk names for the Belt of Orion. The English ones include: Jacob's Rod or Staff; Peter's Staff; the Golden Yard-arm; the L, or Ell; the Ell and Yard; the Yard-stick, and the Yard-wand; the Ellwand; Our Lady's Wand; the Magi; the Three Kings; the Three Marys; or simply the Three Stars.

The Golden Yard arm or the L - exactly how you used it.

-----------------

The Babylonian star catalogues of the Late Bronze Age name Orion MULSIPA.ZI.AN.NA, "The Heavenly Shepherd" or "True Shepherd of Anu" - Anu being the chief god of the heavenly realms.[18] The Babylonian constellation was sacred to Papshukal and Ninshubur, both minor gods fulfilling the role of 'messenger to the gods'. Papshukal was closely associated with the figure of a walking bird on Babylonian boundary stones, and on the star map the figure of the Rooster was located below and behind the figure of the True Shepherd.[19]

The stars of Orion were associated with Osiris, the sun-god of rebirth and afterlife, by the ancient Egyptians.[20][21][22]

Orion has also been identified with the last Egyptian Pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty called Unas who, according to the Pyramid Texts, became great by eating the flesh of his mortal enemies and then slaying and devouring the gods themselves. This was based on a belief in contiguous magic whereby consuming the flesh of great people would bring inheritance of their power.[21] After devouring the gods and absorbing their spirits and powers, Unas journeys through the day and night sky to become the star Sabu, or Orion.[20] The Pyramid Texts also show that the dead Pharaoh was identified with the god Osiris, whose form in the stars was often said to be the constellation Orion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)

Quite frankly, the co-incidence would be if they DIDN'T line up to Orion's Belt.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, who planned it?

cormac

My answer here would be some kind of ancient Pythagoreans or predecessors to them. Imhotep would have known all the details, being an early astronomer. Scott probably has his own answer too.

Forget the website, just think about this...

It is Imhotep," said Sir William Osler of John Hopkins University, "who was the real father of medicine. The first figure of a physician to stand out clearly from the mists of antiquity." Imhotep, a multi-level genius, called "God of Medicine, Prince of Peace, and a type of Christ." If Imhotep designed the first "step pyramid" in approximately 2680 B.C. (and he did), how did Pythagoras develop the so-called "Pythagorean Theorem," the formula for the triangle, when he lived 540 B.C., 2100 years after the pyramid was built?

http://www.africawithin.com/black_history/overview_chapter16.html

Because Imhotep was an early Pythagorean imo.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been debated already? I seem to remember the same thing starting on Page 4 of this thread and continuing all the way to Page 13. In fact, I think it's even the same video (Page 13 of the old thread, Post 185).

Seems to me this was debated to death in that "Strange Pyramid Pic" thread, so...been there, done that.

I might participate in this new one depending on how it develops. Or I might not, considering we've already gone over it. We'll see. Till then, everyone else have fun.

I will finish, for now, with a comment. I don't doubt that perhaps an Egyptologist or two commented on Bauval's idea, but by and large no debate between Egyptology and Bauval has "raged from that time until now." I mean, I read a hell of a lot of material published by Egyptologists, and except perhaps for the occasional remark or two in the epilogues of books, I don't recall any attention given to Bauval. I would guess more's the case that Egyptologists just ignore him. There's a reason for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer here would be some kind of ancient Pythagoreans or predecessors to them. Imhotep would have known all the details, being an early astronomer. Scott probably has his own answer too.

Puzz have you read the book I was talking to clad about? Its a great read I'm sure you'll enjoy regarding predynastic Egypt and its people?

Worth looking into if you haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puzz have you read the book I was talking to clad about? Its a great read I'm sure you'll enjoy regarding predynastic Egypt and its people?

Worth looking into if you haven't.

I will then, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saami and Berbers share a haplogroup from the time when they would have migrated out of Europe, the word Berber comes from Barbara imo, that is Barbara Ethiopians, not the fairer skinned Libyans.

Berbers are a kind of Ethiopian, a Western Ethiopian, as described by Herodotus.

Egyptians acknowledge the ancient knowledge of the Ethiopians and that they got their knowledge of such matters off them. The Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia for a reason.

The Western Ethiopians would have co-united with the incoming European people, at the time after the LGM c. 12,000BC, right when Herodotus has Osiris placed in time. At least back to that time.

The Western Ethiopians learnt the knowledge of the Northern people, a proto-Berber/Saami knowledge, they took it East with them when the Sahara dried up into Ethiopia, where they then passed it up to Egypt in ancient times.

Amun is at the Siwa Oasis, it was in ancient Libya, Poseidon, Libyan etc etc.

SO, it's my thought, to answer your question too cormac - that at the time of the great melting of the ice in the Arctic and Northern Europe, the people spread and migrated out, a portion came into Libya, this is the Libyans. Ethiopians were already there, typically tall black Africans - they mixed. The people were now the Berbers, an ancient Ethiopia Barbara type in Western Africa mixed with an ancient incoming European type. Since a strand of these people (before they left the LGM refuge) also settled into the Arctic circle (from the same LGM point) and became the Saami, the original knowledge of both is retained in both cultures. The great Hunter, like Nimrod, that is Orion and his belt was known from super antiquity as keeping time and shooting the bull with his bow, he was the God you wanted to be.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting past any etymologies of the word Berber, which are irrelevant to the topic anyway as well as the lack of any meaningful understanding of actual history by Herodotus, (from more than 10,000 years before his time) the term Ethiopia/n as the name of a nation/peoples is distinct and separate from the generic usage as a descriptor of non-Egyptian natives of Africa. The two are not entirely enterchangable.

The Western Ethiopians learnt the knowledge of the Northern people, a proto-Berber/Saami knowledge, they took it East with them when the Sahara dried up into Ethiopia, where they then passed it up to Egypt in ancient times.

And yet, there's not any evidence of this. But there is evidence that some of the ancestors of the AE were knowledgeable in the area of astronomy as far back as 9000 BC at sites like Nabta Playa. This significantly precedes the Sami/Berber split.

NONE of which is relevant to the topic at hand.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting past any etymologies of the word Berber, which are irrelevant to the topic anyway as well as the lack of any meaningful understanding of actual history by Herodotus, (from more than 10,000 years before his time) the term Ethiopia/n as the name of a nation/peoples is distinct and separate from the generic usage as a descriptor of non-Egyptian natives of Africa. The two are not entirely enterchangable.

And yet, there's not any evidence of this. But there is evidence that some of the ancestors of the AE were knowledgeable in the area of astronomy as far back as 9000 BC at sites like Nabta Playa. This significantly precedes the Sami/Berber split.

NONE of which is relevant to the topic at hand.

cormac

You know what, I was just thinking, how do we know the point they split was in Europe, it mentions 15,000 ybp in those contexts of the LGM refuge.

So, I'm thinking, where could this point be, where the branch split at 7000BC... the answer is obvious and you're gonna love it.... Atlantis.

Atlantis is the point of the seperation of this group, when one went North to become the Sami and one went south, mixing with the Western Ethiopians as I said.

At 9000BC they were one group, from Iberia to the Canaries, both kept moving slowing each way.

Around this point the group gets broken up, by this terrible flood and earthquakes etc. This created a new coastline of West Africa. Original land from the edges of France and Spain and Africa would have been furthur out, even several kilometres, the erosion on the Western beaches of France can demonstrate how powerful this Atlantic force is. Not to mention the complete disappearance of Doggerland and all land around Great Britain as well as the forming of the Baltic Sea.

It allows them to have built Nabta Player, this co-joined culture, knowing already at that time that Orion pointed to Sirius.

lol. You like that one? Seriously, land on the Western edge of Europe and Africa is more than likely an area where people were refuging, it might have been a point they went to at the time of the Younger Dryas, when everything got cold again, this also fits the Phaethon myth, it got really cold, and really hot, when it burnt black the faces of the Ethiopians.

You should listen to Herodotus more.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting past any etymologies of the word Berber, which are irrelevant to the topic anyway as well as the lack of any meaningful understanding of actual history by Herodotus, (from more than 10,000 years before his time) the term Ethiopia/n as the name of a nation/peoples is distinct and separate from the generic usage as a descriptor of non-Egyptian natives of Africa. The two are not entirely enterchangable.

And yet, there's not any evidence of this. But there is evidence that some of the ancestors of the AE were knowledgeable in the area of astronomy as far back as 9000 BC at sites like Nabta Playa. This significantly precedes the Sami/Berber split.

NONE of which is relevant to the topic at hand.

cormac

I'm bored and you asked: Who planned it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not loving it. I have been thoroughly convinced that Disneyland never existed. More importantly can you start a different topic please we are now so far from the op topic that I forgot for a moment what topic I had clicked on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You like that one?

Not really. And it's already been explained before. :yes:

Herodotus is about as much a historian as Zechariah Sitchin is a translator of Mesopotamian languages. :rolleyes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, well I'll leave you all to figure it out...

The answer to the original OP is of course they match Orions belt, anyone who thinks they don't is blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bored and you asked: Who planned it?

That's what I'm wondering about "this time", considering SC had already claimed in the past that Bauval was wrong. Now he says Bauval is right. Then there's this statement regarding the AE of the time that he made in 2007:

They DID NOT, however, design the ground plan 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...

Source

So in short, he said the AE weren't intelligent enough to have done it on their own. :rolleyes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm wondering about "this time", considering SC had already claimed in the past that Bauval was wrong. Now he says Bauval is right. Then there's this statement regarding the AE of the time that he made in 2007:

Source

So in short, he said the AE weren't intelligent enough to have done it on their own. :rolleyes:

cormac

No, that's right, they just worked the fields, others held the real knowledge, like the priests that spoke to Herodotus and Plato who would have been of a different type but became part of the Egyptians, like Imhotep, a caste of priestly knowledge, not the general populace, which is often different to the ones running the show.

Ethiopians were the first men that ever lived, the only truly autochthonous race and the first to institute the worship of the gods and the rites of sacrifice. Egypt itself was a colony of Ethiopia and the laws and script of both lands were naturally the same; but the hieroglyphic script was more widely known to the vulgar in Ethiopia than in Egypt. (Diodorus Siculus, bk. iii, ch. 3.) This knowledge of writing was universal in Ethiopia but was confined to the priestly classes alone in Egypt. This was because the Egyptian priesthood was Ethiopian.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we05.htm

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's right, they just worked the fields, others held the real knowledge, like the priests that spoke to Herodotus and Plato who would have been of a different type but became part of the Egyptians, like Imhotep, a caste of priestly knowledge, not the general populace, which is often different to the ones running the show.

Ethiopians were the first men that ever lived, the only truly autochthonous race and the first to institute the worship of the gods and the rites of sacrifice. Egypt itself was a colony of Ethiopia and the laws and script of both lands were naturally the same; but the hieroglyphic script was more widely known to the vulgar in Ethiopia than in Egypt. (Diodorus Siculus, bk. iii, ch. 3.) This knowledge of writing was universal in Ethiopia but was confined to the priestly classes alone in Egypt. This was because the Egyptian priesthood was Ethiopian.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we05.htm

They were STILL Egyptians. :yes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature says, "There is every reason to conclude that the separate colonies of priestcraft spread from Meroe into Egypt; and the primeval monuments in Ethiopia strongly confirm the native traditions, reported by Diodorus Siculus, that the worship of Zeus-Ammon originated in Meroe, also the worship of Osiris. This would render highly probable the opinion that commerce, science and art descended into Egypt from the Upper Nile. Herodotus called the Ethiopians "Wisemen occupying the Upper Nile, men of long life, whose manners and customs pertain to the Golden Age,

p. 29

those virtuous mortals, whose feasts and banquets are honored by Jupiter himself." In Greek times, the Egyptians depicted Ethiopia as an ideal state. The Puranas, the ancient historical books of India, speak of the civilization of Ethiopia as being older than that of Egypt. These Sanskrit books mention the names of old Cushite kings that were worshipped in India and who were adopted and changed to suit the fancy of the later people of Greece and Rome.

Who planned them?

The pictures on the Egyptian monuments reveal that Ethiopians were the builders. They, not the Egyptians, were the master-craftsmen of the earlier ages. The first courses of the pyramids were built of Ethiopian stone. The Cushites were a sacerdotal or priestly race. There was a religious and astronomical significance in the position and shape of the pyramids. Dubois points to the fact that in Upper Egypt there were pictured black priests who were conferring upon red Egyptians, the instruments and symbols of priesthood. Ethiopians in very early ages had an original and astounding religion, which included the rite of human sacrifice. It lingered on in the early life of Greece and Home. Dowd explains this rite in this way: "The African offered his nearest and dearest, not from depravity but from a greater love for the supreme being." The priestly caste was more influencial upon the Upper Nile than in Egypt. With the withdrawal of the Ethiopian priesthood from Egypt to Napata, the people of the Lower Nile lost the sense of the real meaning of their religion, which steadily deteriorated with their language after their separation from Ethiopia.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we05.htm

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.