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 3
Scott Creighton

The Pyramid (Re)Genesis Plan

206 posts in this topic

Hi Everyone,

Told you I'd return!

The following article, The Giza Genesis Plan, was recently published in New Dawn Magazine. Readers here at UM might find it of some interest.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong section, you might want to try the New Age forum a little further down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a fine fit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same bit about the supposed match between Orions belt and the pyramids which has been shown in other topics to be invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same bit about the supposed match between Orions belt and the pyramids which has been shown in other topics to be invalid.

You mean Scott hasn't recognized the flaws in his claims and dumped his idea, and is instead just bringing it back after he thinks everyone's forgotten it and dumping it on a new crowd of forumites?

You shock me sir, deeply and utterly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

Told you I'd return!

The following article, The Giza Genesis Plan, was recently published in New Dawn Magazine. Readers here at UM might find it of some interest.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

From the article:

Since any two points (in this case the southeast corners of G1 and G3) make a straight

line, nothing more was thought of this alignment. However, after closer examination

of the Giza monuments, what immediately becomes apparent – and what was also

noticed by Dr Lehner – is that this line actually extends much further, passing almost

perfectly through the axis of two of the so-called queens’ pyramids at Giza, G1a and

G3a (figure 2). Such an alignment is unlikely to be simple coincidence thus we have

our first indication that the builders of Giza truly were working with a unified site

plan in mind.

So the Egytians knew about Asthetics and saw that building on a line was pleasing to the human eye. Isn't that how almost all settlements that can... are set up. The fact that the pyramids align is Asthetic in nature, not spiritual or astrological.

It is well documented that to get the pyramids to align with the belt of Orion, the pyramids have to be turned at an angle and inverted north to south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory

I tried to read most of this, but I did not see the point. What is new here that was not proposed back in 1983 by Bauval? Are you merely arguing fine details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is the same bit about the supposed match between Orions belt and the pyramids which has been shown in other topics to be invalid.

SC: And which I have shown elsewhere here on UM to be prfectly valid. The reason you cannot understand it is because you cannot view the world as the AEs did i.e. that they did not follow our modern convention that places North as 'Up'. The AE world view was that South='Up'. And neither, it seems, can you envisage the pyramids on the Giza plateau in 3 dimensions. That is why Ed Krupp got it all wrong and why his nonsense has been perpetuated by the likes of yourself on these boards for years. Krupp was wrong. Period.

Fig. 1 - The AE View:

Fig%202.5.1.jpg

(The sky and ground match)

Fig. 2 - Ed Krupp View:

Fig%202.5.2.jpg

(Fig 2 As can easily be observed, Ed Krupp's view presents a complete mismatch between the sky and ground).

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Shadowsot: ...Scott hasn't recognized the flaws in his claims...

SC: Present the flaws.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From the article:

So the Egytians knew about Asthetics and saw that building on a line was pleasing to the human eye. Isn't that how almost all settlements that can... are set up. The fact that the pyramids align is Asthetic in nature, not spiritual or astrological.

It is well documented that to get the pyramids to align with the belt of Orion, the pyramids have to be turned at an angle and inverted north to south.

http://en.wikipedia....relation_theory

I tried to read most of this, but I did not see the point. What is new here that was not proposed back in 1983 by Bauval? Are you merely arguing fine details?

SC: You miss the point. It is not simply about constructing along a line. That's easy! You have to consider the inter-quarter lines also. Move any of the structures slightly in any of the cardinal directions; make any of the structures a slightly different size and these inter-quarter relationships simply fall apart. It is not just a relationship of the general layout but also of relative proportion of one structure to the next the POINT being that G3 MUST be designed in order to obtain the relative proportions of G2 and G1. That is a preconceived unified design.

Also, Giza presents a unified plan in terms of its layout AND the relative proportions of the structures. They were designed as one integral unit. All the structures were planned at the SAME DESIGN STAGE. Together, as one preconceived, unified plan.

Now, accepting the one preconceived, unified plan - we are told it took around 80 years or thereabouts to complete all three main Gizamids and the associated satellite pyramids, the so-called 'Queens Pyramids'. How then did the designer of this single, preconceived, unified plan know that a king who would live decades in the future from his own time would not require any Queens Pyramids (G2/Rachaf - this is in spite of this king having five known queens)? How could the designer of the plan also have known that the king after Rachaf - Menkaure - (even further into the future) would only require three so-called Queens Pyramids for his queens? The simple fact of the matter - time machines notwithstanding - the designer could not have known how many tombs to design for future kings. And yet we can easily observe that these are part of a unified, preconceived plan at Giza. And it goes without saying, since the designer could not have known how many satellite pyramids to build into his plan for future queens of future kings, he simply could not have been planning these structures as tombs at all.

They were not the 'tomb of the king' but rather the 'womb of the kingdom'. They were built as Recovery Vaults.

DieChecker: It is well documented that to get the pyramids to align with the belt of Orion, the pyramids have to be turned at an angle and inverted north to south.

SC: And it is patently WRONG. See my reply to Sensible Logic (above).

DieChecker: What is new here that was not proposed back in 1983 by Bauval? Are you merely arguing fine details?

SC: Bauval most certainly does not argue that the early, giant pyramids were Recovery Vaults. He does not present the c.2,500 AD date indicated by the Belt Stars. He does not present the ca.3,980 BCE date indicated by the Sphinx. And neither does Bauval demonstrate anywhere that the actual dimensions of the Gizamids can simply and easily be derived from the Belt Star asterism. Bauval has never presented anywhere the Precession Timeline between the two sets of so-called Queens Pyramids. And finally, Bauval has always argued that G3 is positioned wrongly whereas I argue that it is G2 that is positioned wrongly (slightly) from its true Belt star position on the plateau and I offer a very reasonable explanation of why that is so. So, there are many quite fundamental differences between what Bauval presents and what I present.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: And which I have shown elsewhere here on UM to be prfectly valid. The reason you cannot understand it is because you cannot view the world as the AEs did i.e. that they did not follow our modern convention that places North as 'Up'. The AE world view was that South='Up'. And neither, it seems, can you envisage the pyramids on the Giza plateau in 3 dimensions. That is why Ed Krupp got it all wrong and why his nonsense has been perpetuated by the likes of yourself on these boards for years. Krupp was wrong. Period.

What is your basis for this claim, Scott?

Is it because we use the term "Upper Egypt" to refer to the southern half of that ancient empire?

There is no doubt that ancient Egypt was originally two kingdoms - united around the start of the third millenium BCE - but is there any evidence that ancient Egyptians actually referred to these as "Upper" (south) and "Lower" (north)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What is your basis for this claim, Scott?

Is it because we use the term "Upper Egypt" to refer to the southern half of that ancient empire?

There is no doubt that ancient Egypt was originally two kingdoms - united around the start of the third millenium BCE - but is there any evidence that ancient Egyptians actually referred to these as "Upper" (south) and "Lower" (north)?

Hello Leo,

You ask me to support the claim that the AEs regarded south as 'up'. Okay - let's say I present citations from academia that support this contention, will that bring you a step closer to accepting what I am arguing? No, it won't will it? So what is your point in asking this question? Even if I present a screed of citations supporting this particular contention, it is not going to change your hidebound views on Egyptology one iota - you (and others on this board) who have always believed Ed Krupp's upside-down view of the Gizamid/Belt star correlation will CONTINUE to believe that view and perpetuate his nonsense. That is the reality of the situation. You will not change your own view even if there is considerable academic citations that support my view and reject Krupp's. And you will continue to perpetuate his falsehoods because it is convenient for you (and others who perpetuate this Krupp nonsense) to do so.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Leo,

You ask me to support the claim that the AEs regarded south as 'up'. Okay - let's say I present citations from academia that support this contention, will that bring you a step closer to accepting what I am arguing? No, it won't will it? So what is your point in asking this question? Even if I present a screed of citations supporting this particular contention, it is not going to change your hidebound views on Egyptology one iota - you (and others on this board) who have always believed Ed Krupp's upside-down view of the Gizamid/Belt star correlation will CONTINUE to believe that view and perpetuate his nonsense. That is the reality of the situation. You will not change your own view even if there is considerable academic citations that support my view and reject Krupp's. And you will continue to perpetuate his falsehoods because it is convenient for you (and others who perpetuate this Krupp nonsense) to do so.

Best wishes,

SC

Nice attempt to slide out of presenting any evidence, Scott. An an equally nice ad hom. :tu:

If you have such evidence as you allude to in the post above, then please present it. I would ask, however, that this evidence show that the ancient Egyptians actually referred to their country in the terms "Upper" and "Lower", and not reflect only our modern usage of those terms.

If you can produce this evidence, it would not 'prove' your hypothesis, but it would give it credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nice attempt to slide out of presenting any evidence, Scott. An an equally nice ad hom. :tu:

If you have such evidence as you allude to in the post above, then please present it. I would ask, however, that this evidence show that the ancient Egyptians actually referred to their country in the terms "Upper" and "Lower", and not reflect only our modern usage of those terms.

If you can produce this evidence, it would not 'prove' your hypothesis, but it would give it credibility.

SC: Let me ask again - if I were to present to you academic citations that support the view I have expressed that the AE world view regarded south as 'up', will that then bring you nearer to accepting what I have proposed with specific regard to Gizamid/Belt star orientation? Yes or no?

Best wishes,

SC

PS - There was absolutely no ad hom in my previous post, not even the scent of one.

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

SC: And which I have shown elsewhere here on UM to be prfectly valid. The reason you cannot understand it is because you cannot view the world as the AEs did i.e. that they did not follow our modern convention that places North as 'Up'. The AE world view was that South='Up'. And neither, it seems, can you envisage the pyramids on the Giza plateau in 3 dimensions. That is why Ed Krupp got it all wrong and why his nonsense has been perpetuated by the likes of yourself on these boards for years. Krupp was wrong. Period.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

When comparing two physical objects, It is only whether they actually line up. How you view it and what you consider compass points are meaningless.

The likes of myself? Oh you mean those that put more weight on facts and evidence than on Fantasy and speculation. That puts me in excellent company. Thanks for the compliment.

Krupp's work was independently verified by Anthony Fairall, astronomy professor at the University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Some reading for you:

http://www.ianlawton.com/oc8.htm

http://www.bibliotec...piramide_26.htm

I recall seeing Hancock and Bauval at the (Cayce organization) ARE’s Ancient Egypt Conferences (renamed Annual Ancient Mysteries Conference) using the supposedly highly accurate Skyglobe computer program and showing how the three pyramids were perfectly aligned to reflect Orion’s Belt.
Bauval now admits that Skyglobe,

“does not take into account the proper motion of the stars (nor any other factor such as nutation, aberration, refraction) but merely accounts for the circular motion of precession.”

In short, what this means is that the Orion Skyglobe shows in 10,500 BC is based on the Orion seen in the present—only the precession (the Earth’s wobble) is adjusted for.

In fact, Bauval has stated that the key Orion’s Belt measurement in 10,500 BC from his Skyglobe program is 11.5 degrees. But the actual measurement is almost 9 degrees. It might not seem like much, but his original 11.5 degrees is 28% higher than it should have been. In terms of a “perfect fit” of Orion’s Belt on top of the three pyramids at Giza, the net result is that there really isn’t a good fit.
Edited by Sensible Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sensible Logic: When comparing two physical objects, It is only whether they actually line up. How you view it and what you consider compass points are meaningless.

SC: Then why do you think it is that anyone on this site opposed to the Giza-Orion correlation have consistently argued that the correlation fails because the orientation is wrong i.e. the Krupp-side down nonsense? Why do you think that is?

Sensible Logic: The likes of myself? Oh you mean those that put more weight on facts and evidence than on Fantasy and speculation.

SC: Really? Then present to me the evidence that supports Dr Krupp's view that the AEs world view was the same as ours i.e. that the AEs regarded north as UP. Or is that just “fantasy and speculation” on your part that such evidence actually exists? And while you’re at it – since you will apparently only believe something based on facts and evidence, present to this board hard, unequivocal evidence from the period that proves the early, giant pyramids were built as tombs for AE kings of the period. That shouldn’t be too hard for you now, should it?

Sensible Logic: That puts me in excellent company.

SC: That remains to be seen.

Sensible Logic: Thanks for the compliment.

SC: I wasn’t complimenting you.

Sensible Logic: Krupp's work was independently verified by Anthony Fairall, astronomy professor at the University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Some reading for you:

http://www.ianlawton.com/oc8.htm

http://www.bibliotec...piramide_26.htm

SC: Read them long ago. And both Krupp and Fairall have been debunked by other eminent professors, inter-alia: Professor Archie Roy, Dr Mary Bruck, Professor Giulo Magli of Milan Politecnico, Professor Percy Seymour of Plymouth University and Professor Chandra Wikramasingh of Cardiff University. And, I have to say, by the AEs themselves who regarded south as “UP”.

Have a read here and here.

As for Dr Little – you do know why he rejects the Giza-Orion Correlation, don’t you? Because he supports the theory of his good friend, Andrew Collins’ Giza-Cygnus Correlation instead. This is well documented. But since you quote Dr Little, he also had this to say about part of my own research:

Dr Little: Scott Creighton, author of The Giza Codex, has generated a remarkable idea that may well have merit, although the mainstream cannot accept it because of the "impossible" dates Creighton suggests. From here.

Why Dr Little thinks my date of ca.2,630 BCE for the start of the pyramid-building age is “impossible” is anyone’s guess.

You also twitter on about Robert Bauval’s OCT. Let me type this slowly for you – the OCT has NOTHING to do with my own research. I do not support Bauval’s OCT other than my agreement with Bauval that the Gizamids do represent the Belt stars and the so-called Queens Pyramids of Menkaure do represent the Belt stars at their minimum culmination. There is nothing else at all that is comparable between the RVT and Bauval’s OCT. All this nonsense you quoted about Skyglobe and 10,500 BCE has NOTHING to do with my own research since I do not accept (and never have) that the main Gizamids are aligned to the Belt stars at their meridian transit. I hope that is now clear for you?

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: You miss the point. It is not simply about constructing along a line. That's easy! You have to consider the inter-quarter lines also. Move any of the structures slightly in any of the cardinal directions; make any of the structures a slightly different size and these inter-quarter relationships simply fall apart. It is not just a relationship of the general layout but also of relative proportion of one structure to the next the POINT being that G3 MUST be designed in order to obtain the relative proportions of G2 and G1. That is a preconceived unified design.

The G2 is of a different size and different location. But you took that into consideration already right?

It is still aesthetics. When planning the G2 and G3 the architect/engineer would have looked and determined the ratios that were pleasing to the eye of that Egyptian time period. It is not surprising. The AE probably did the same in many other places. Picking and building sites based on appearance, as well as geographic location.

Also, Giza presents a unified plan in terms of its layout AND the relative proportions of the structures. They were designed as one integral unit. All the structures were planned at the SAME DESIGN STAGE. Together, as one preconceived, unified plan.

Now, accepting the one preconceived, unified plan - we are told it took around 80 years or thereabouts to complete all three main Gizamids and the associated satellite pyramids, the so-called 'Queens Pyramids'. How then did the designer of this single, preconceived, unified plan know that a king who would live decades in the future from his own time would not require any Queens Pyramids (G2/Rachaf - this is in spite of this king having five known queens)? How could the designer of the plan also have known that the king after Rachaf - Menkaure - (even further into the future) would only require three so-called Queens Pyramids for his queens? The simple fact of the matter - time machines notwithstanding - the designer could not have known how many tombs to design for future kings. And yet we can easily observe that these are part of a unified, preconceived plan at Giza. And it goes without saying, since the designer could not have known how many satellite pyramids to build into his plan for future queens of future kings, he simply could not have been planning these structures as tombs at all.

You're jumping to conclusions here. Because they did not know how many Queen's pyramids they would need in 80 years, then the Pyramids must not be Tombs? That is a big giant leap, not a step of logic, but a grasping leap of faith. How long does it take to build a Queen's pyramid, 3 months? Practically portable for the time and place.

The idea that they are a planned arrangement MUST be true. But they are not planned in one sitting. That is pure speculation of a highly unsubstatiated kind.

So if the complex was built piecemeal. And it was. And was designed piecemeal. As is much more likely. Then your Queen Pyramid idea holds no weight. And then the rest of your arguement starts to fall apart.

They were not the 'tomb of the king' but rather the 'womb of the kingdom'. They were built as Recovery Vaults.
DieChecker: It is well documented that to get the pyramids to align with the belt of Orion, the pyramids have to be turned at an angle and inverted north to south.

SC: And it is patently WRONG. See my reply to Sensible Logic (above).

Wanting it to be wrong does not make it wrong.

The simple fact is that if you look at Orion's Belt from the Northern Hemisphere, it looks like this....

orionsbelt.gif

And the Giza Plataeu is set up like this....

300px-Giza_pyramid_complex_(map).svg.png

Krupp is right in that the middle pyramid is higher then the line, while the middle star is lower then the line.

And the Belt appears in the East and sets in the West, but in the North it appears to be below the local Meridian, or... appears in the South. The only time the pyramids and Orion's belt would appear to be even somewhat in alignment would be at mid of night looking from the North.

Krupp is also right in that the angle of the star at their highest point is closer to 45 degrees, while the pyramids are established to run on a 38 degree line.

Facts are facts...

DieChecker: What is new here that was not proposed back in 1983 by Bauval? Are you merely arguing fine details?

SC: Bauval most certainly does not argue that the early, giant pyramids were Recovery Vaults. He does not present the c.2,500 AD date indicated by the Belt Stars. He does not present the ca.3,980 BCE date indicated by the Sphinx. And neither does Bauval demonstrate anywhere that the actual dimensions of the Gizamids can simply and easily be derived from the Belt Star asterism. Bauval has never presented anywhere the Precession Timeline between the two sets of so-called Queens Pyramids. And finally, Bauval has always argued that G3 is positioned wrongly whereas I argue that it is G2 that is positioned wrongly (slightly) from its true Belt star position on the plateau and I offer a very reasonable explanation of why that is so. So, there are many quite fundamental differences between what Bauval presents and what I present.

Best wishes,

SC

So.... in the minor details.

So the Recovery Vaults were there because there was going to be a calamity? What calamity? How can you know they thought this unless you know what it was they feared?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

orionsbelt.gif

And you should add the little detail that in 2500 BC Orion in its apogee hardly ever came out above the horizon and then looked like this:

post-57427-0-46954100-1336420458_thumb.j

Edited by questionmark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice attempt to slide out of presenting any evidence, Scott. An an equally nice ad hom. :tu:

If you have such evidence as you allude to in the post above, then please present it. I would ask, however, that this evidence show that the ancient Egyptians actually referred to their country in the terms "Upper" and "Lower", and not reflect only our modern usage of those terms.

If you can produce this evidence, it would not 'prove' your hypothesis, but it would give it credibility.

Best as I can tell from my own research, it was the Greeks who first started to use the terms Upper and Lower. I don't know how confident I am in stating this because I can't remember in which book or paper I read that tidbit, so I cannot even cite a reference.

However, the Egyptians themselves did not use the terms Upper and Lower. Two Lands, Sedge and Bee, and other terms were used by the Egyptians. While I don't know of the Egyptians describing "up" in terms of a reference for the south, I can say that for the Egyptians their worldview was different from ours. Most of us automatically think of north as predominant, such as on the face of a compass, but to the Egyptians, when it came to north and south, the south was predominant. The main reason for this was the flow of the Nile, which of course came from the south, and the entire civilization of pharaonic Egypt existed because of the Nile.

Scott mentioned an actual academic reference in support of south being referred to as "up," and I'd be interested in reviewing it. I'm not saying the idea is impossible. I simply have never encountered it myself and should like to see the research supporting it.

Nevertheless, when one considers the cardinal directions from the ancient Egyptian perspective, by far the most important to them was east and west. There is no doubting this. East represented resurrection and rebirth, while west represented death and the land of the dead—all based on the cyclic, endless journey of the sun. Consider that at Giza the pyramids face toward the east; that is, toward the daily rebirth of the sun. It would be a mistake to view either south or north as the predominant setting for Old Kingdom pyramids. The temples are on the east side of the pyramids, and it was within the temples that the priests performed the life-sustaining rituals for their deceased kings ("life-sustaining" meaning the ongoing afterlife of the kings, which was critical in the ancient mind). Many of the contemporary and most important private burials were on the east side of the pyramids—this is not true in the case of every single tomb, of course, but consider that the Eastern Cemetery of the Great Pyramid is where Khufu's immediate family members were buried, including his own mother, Hetepheres.

As far as the rest of the debate, it seems like more of the same. I don't know how motivated I'd be to go over all of that again. I perused Scott's paper because he took the time to share it with us, but it seems pretty much the same as the prior debates we've had with him. And I see the same problems of discontinuity with matters relevant to pharaonic culture and religion as we've come to understand it, based on extant evidence. I might continue to participate in other topics of the discussion, but I don't see anything new pertaining to the Orion stuff. It's already been debated enough and, in my opinion, amply disproved in past debates.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

SC: Then why do you think it is that anyone on this site opposed to the Giza-Orion correlation have consistently argued that the correlation fails because the orientation is wrong i.e. the Krupp-side down nonsense? Why do you think that is?

Lets compare your image with the images posted by DieChecker. In yours, the smallest star, Mintaka is aligned with the smallest pyramid Menkaure. In reality, as shown by the images posted by DieChecker, Mintaka is aligned with the larger pyramid Khufu at the other end. The only way your alignment works is for the map of the pyramid layout to be Inverted. Inverting the pyramid layout so that it makes the alignment viable does just the opposite.

Fig%202.5.1.jpg

orionsbelt.gif

300px-Giza_pyramid_complex_(map).svg.png

SC: Really? Then present to me the evidence that supports Dr Krupp's view that the AEs world view was the same as ours i.e. that the AEs regarded north as UP. Or is that just “fantasy and speculation” on your part that such evidence actually exists? And while you’re at it – since you will apparently only believe something based on facts and evidence, present to this board hard, unequivocal evidence from the period that proves the early, giant pyramids were built as tombs for AE kings of the period. That shouldn’t be too hard for you now, should it?

As posted kmt_sesh, The Egyptians were more concerned with the East/West alignment of the pyramids than with North/South.

Since the part of the discussion in this topic you and I are having has nothing to do with whether the pyramids were tombs or not, it is an ineffective way of trying to change the subject so to speak. However:

http://egyptian-myst....com/?q=node/18

http://www.touregypt...idevolution.htm

http://www.catchpenn...g/whybuilt.html

Perhaps not the unequivocal evidence you asked for but still shows that they were designed for that purpose.

Edited by Sensible Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know about a "recovery vault", but maybe when they were builing them to (maybe) align with the stars, they thought "eh, good enough" . of course im probably wrong and youre going to tell me why, but i just thought id throw that in there :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know about a "recovery vault", but maybe when they were builing them to (maybe) align with the stars, they thought "eh, good enough" . of course im probably wrong and youre going to tell me why, but i just thought id throw that in there :w00t:

might have aligned them with stars, but highly doubtful that they would align them to start you could only see from mid December to mid January right above the horizon... and that in Giza would have been blocked by a hill 3/4 of the time...

That is why I think this should go into the New Age section. Evidence is not so sought after there.... :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best as I can tell from my own research, it was the Greeks who first started to use the terms Upper and Lower. I don't know how confident I am in stating this because I can't remember in which book or paper I read that tidbit, so I cannot even cite a reference.

That was my understanding as well, kmt, as the name 'Egypt' derives from the Greek. The Egyptians called the two 'provinces' Ta Shemau (south) and Ta Mehu (north). The rough translation of Ta Shemau is 'land of the reeds', not 'upper land'.

However, the Egyptians themselves did not use the terms Upper and Lower. Two Lands, Sedge and Bee, and other terms were used by the Egyptians. While I don't know of the Egyptians describing "up" in terms of a reference for the south, I can say that for the Egyptians their worldview was different from ours. Most of us automatically think of north as predominant, such as on the face of a compass, but to the Egyptians, when it came to north and south, the south was predominant. The main reason for this was the flow of the Nile, which of course came from the south, and the entire civilization of pharaonic Egypt existed because of the Nile.

Scott mentioned an actual academic reference in support of south being referred to as "up," and I'd be interested in reviewing it. I'm not saying the idea is impossible. I simply have never encountered it myself and should like to see the research supporting it.

Which is what I requested, so be careful you don't get accused of being "hidebound" and "perpetuating another's falsehoods" as I was, though! ;):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DieChecker: The G2 is of a different size and different location. But you took that into consideration already right?

SC: Of course.

DieChecker: It is still aesthetics. When planning the G2 and G3 the architect/engineer would have looked and determined the ratios that were pleasing to the eye of that Egyptian time period. It is not surprising. The AE probably did the same in many other places. Picking and building sites based on appearance, as well as geographic location.

SC: Look – I don’t really know what it is you are trying to say here but understand this – the ancient Egyptians did not plan the tomb of their successor or their successor’s successor. Or any of their successor’s queens tombs. We are constantly being told that the AE king planned his tomb to his own personal taste and nothing else. So now that you have been shown that the Gizamids do exhibit elements of a unified design you are NOW trying to shift the goalposts by claiming that the architect/engineer would have looked and determined the ratios that were pleasing to the eye…” The simple fact of this design is that G3 MUST be designed FIRST in order to determine the ratios of G2 and G1. Is this simple fact registering with you yet?

DieChecker: You're jumping to conclusions here. Because they did not know how many Queen's pyramids they would need in 80 years, then the Pyramids must not be Tombs? That is a big giant leap, not a step of logic, but a grasping leap of faith. How long does it take to build a Queen's pyramid, 3 months? Practically portable for the time and place.

SC: You’re really not getting this, are you? Granted, a queen’s pyramid may be constructed in a relatively short time. But according to mainstream opinion, G3 (and its so-called queens) was built long after G1 and G2 – about 80-100 years. Do you not see the problem here? Although the plan of the three main Gizamids and the two sets of three so-called queens pyramids was drawn up on Day 1, it would take 80-100 years to implement this plan. So how did the planner know that in 40-60 years in the future there would be a second king at Giza with five queens but none of these queens would want a pyramid beside her husband’s ‘tomb’? How could the designer of this preconceived, unified, homogenous plan have known that in 80-100 years from his time there would exist a third king at Giza who would require three pyramid tombs for his queens? The evidence of preconceived planning is there to see at Giza. So how did the designer know all that would be required in terms of tombs for kings and queens many decades into the future from his own time? Did this designer have a time machine? How did he know how many ‘tombs’ to build into his preconceived plan? The only sensible and rationale explanation for this fore-knowledge is that the designer of this plan was not designing tombs at all – but something else altogether. A Recovery System for the kingdom.

DieChecker: The idea that they are a planned arrangement MUST be true. But they are not planned in one sitting. That is pure speculation of a highly unsubstatiated kind.

SC: Math and probability tells me you’re wrong and I am right. To obtain the dimensions of G2 and G1 then G3 MUST be defined and designed FIRST. Nd it was. Do you understand the implication of this simple fact?

DieChecker: So if the complex was built piecemeal. And it was.

SC: Present your proof of that.

DieChecker: And was designed piecemeal. As is much more likely.

SC: More likely doesn’t mean it was. But if you want to assert that it was then present the evidence to back it up.

DieChecker: Then your Queen Pyramid idea holds no weight. And then the rest of your arguement starts to fall apart.

SC: Except that the math and probability strongly indicate that I am correct.

DieChecker: Wanting it to be wrong does not make it wrong.

SC: Something of a logical fallacy here since it is not for me to prove that something is wrong but rather for you to prove that it is right.

DieChecker: The simple fact is that if you look at Orion's Belt from the Northern Hemisphere, it looks like this....

SC: Indeed it does. At least there is something we can agree upon.

DieChecker: And the Giza Plataeu is set up like this....

SC: Well, you have chosen to present an image of the Giza plateau where you have North as UP which is simply not the AE world view. Your choice of image is nothing more than ethnocentric projection (as it was with Ed Krupp).

The AEs would have SOUTH to the top. Like this:

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Slide3.JPG

DieChecker: Krupp is right in that the middle pyramid is higher then the line, while the middle star is lower then the line.

SC: Only if you ethnocentrically project modern cardinal convention onto an ancient culture. See images above for the AE world view.

DieChecker: And the Belt appears in the East and sets in the West, but in the North it appears to be below the local Meridian…

SC: In the northern hemisphere the Belt stars never appear in the northern part of the sky.

DieChecker: …or... appears in the South.

SC: South – indeed. And the AEs regarded South as UP.

DieChecker: The only time the pyramids and Orion's belt would appear to be even somewhat in alignment would be at mid of night looking from the North.

SC: Precisely - LOOKING SOUTH. And what alignment specifically are you talking of here?

DieChecker: Krupp is also right in that the angle of the star at their highest point is closer to 45 degrees, while the pyramids are established to run on a 38 degree line.

SC: I am sure he is but it has didley-squat to do with anything I am saying. Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying with what Robert Bauval is saying with his OCT? I will type this again – s l o w l y – I make no meridian alignment with the Gizamids and the Belt stars. Comprende?

DieChecker: Facts are facts...

SC: Indeed they are. You should take some time to check them out before insinuating I am saying/claiming something that I am not.

DieChecker: So.... in the minor details.

SC: Aren’t you a wit!

DieChecker: So the Recovery Vaults were there because there was going to be a calamity? What calamity? How can you know they thought this unless you know what it was they feared?

SC: Do your research. It’s all there in the culture. And it’s not too difficult to find.

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
might have aligned them with stars, but highly doubtful that they would align them to start you could only see from mid December to mid January right above the horizon... and that in Giza would have been blocked by a hill 3/4 of the time... That is why I think this should go into the New Age section. Evidence is not so sought after there.... :devil:

To be perfectly frank, many modern folks and especially the New Agers vastly overplay the ancient Egyptians' own concern with heavenly bodies. Of course the heavens were important to the Egyptians, but not to the extent that we ought to think of them as "master astronomers." This is especially true for the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Many times I myself have posted about the particular stars to which the four shafts of the Great Pyramid might have pointed, but I don't usually carry it all the way to the full truth...which I should. This truth is that the alignment with certain stars is only theoretical. We can't tell if this is what the shafts were meant to do. They might well have had nothing to do with heavenly bodies. When you think about it, if fixed positions in the night sky were that vital to the Egyptians, than logic would follow that most or all Egyptian pyramids would have similar shafts—and yet only the Great Pyramid does.

While it's true that the ceilings of many tombs were painted with star motifs, such as the burial chamber of Unis from the end of Dynasty 5, at most these are merely abstract representations of stars. The first real pharaonic star map is not even known until Dynasty 18, in the cenotaph tomb of the nobleman Senenmut (the tomb designated TT353). Even then it's thought the star map in this tomb was an aid to help fix the dates for certain festivals in the Theban region. This is almost a thousand years after the pyramids at Giza were built.

That was my understanding as well, kmt, as the name 'Egypt' derives from the Greek. The Egyptians called the two 'provinces' Ta Shemau (south) and Ta Mehu (north). The rough translation of Ta Shemau is 'land of the reeds', not 'upper land'. Which is what I requested, so be careful you don't get accused of being "hidebound" and "perpetuating another's falsehoods" as I was, though! ;):P

LOL Oh, please, I'm called "hidebound" all the time at UM. Nothing new there. And considering the books referred to by those hides represent hard-fought, legitimate historical research, I take it as a compliment. I prefer real studies to fringe inventions.

Ta-Shemu (Land of Reeds) and Ta-Mehu (Land of Papyrus) are another good example of how the Egyptians viewed north and south. The meanings behind such terms, as well as those I used as examples in my previous post, are well understood. They are amply attested in the ancient inscriptions. This is why no one need view such things as "falsehoods." After all, for pete's sake, this is what the Egyptians themselves wrote.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, spend some time looking into how the three main pyramids align to the northeast, almost on a straight line to the important temple complex known as Iunu (the Greek Heliopolis). This is a possible legitimate argument for something of an organized plan, if one existed. And it makes a lot of sense to the state religion of the Old Kingdom.

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.