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

Posted (edited)

Well, if it is the "astralization of the soul" you can pick whatever star you want, one fantasy is as good as the other. And even if the Henu bark traveled through the night it would still be first seen in the east, not sporadically in the west as Orion is. The only thing that could rise sporadically somewhere else is a demon out of the underworld. But the references of demons out of the underworld are not from the 4th dynasty nor from the first pyramid texts, that is a much more recent and mostly through Greek influence.

Yes, i don't think the general blurb on what the cult of Sokar involved implies that the newly created/astralized soul would be specifically related to Sokar(or Orion). This would transpire within the central regions/lowest of the Amduat, the 5th hour of night the solar barque passes over the secret cave region of Sokar, the 6th hour the sun is regenerated, the astralized Ba is created, what this requires then would be the astral manifestation of Sokar, as Orion, to be due South for ideal correspondance.

The classic image of Sokar from the Amduat indicates this concern with centrality, between the guardian Lions of the East and West, the unfettered hawk Deity of the opened wings associate with the Ba soul, with arguably the wing itself as an ideogram of the belt stars.

http://ib205.tripod.com/VK/kv34/image-10.jpg

Edited by Kantzveldt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i don't think the general blurb on what the cult of Sokar involved implies that the newly created/astralized soul would be specifically related to Sokar(or Orion).

Our problem here is that the earliest, non-constructed, evidence we have from the Sokar cult dates from the 12th dynasty, or almost 600 years after the building of the Giza complex.

his would transpire within the central regions/lowest of the Amduat, the 5th hour of night the solar barque passes over the secret cave region of Sokar, the 6th hour the sun is regenerated, the astralized Ba is created, what this requires then would be the astral manifestation of Sokar, as Orion, to be due South for ideal correspondance.

if it transpires there it transpires in the underworld, and therefore not in the upper world and therefore not visible. In any case the 5th hour of the night applies to every night, not to 2 months a year, therefore Orion is a recent embellishment.

I suspect that Mdme. Blavatsky in her infinite wisdom was at work here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problem here is that the earliest, non-constructed, evidence we have from the Sokar cult dates from the 12th dynasty, or almost 600 years after the building of the Giza complex.

if it transpires there it transpires in the underworld, and therefore not in the upper world and therefore not visible. In any case the 5th hour of the night applies to every night, not to 2 months a year, therefore Orion is a recent embellishment.

I suspect that Mdme. Blavatsky in her infinite wisdom was at work here...

There isn't a problem as such, but one can only consider the case i've made in terms of probabilities, from the known attestations of Sokar during the 4th Dynasty, through to the Pyramid texts, and then what was involved during the New Kingdom, but like i said, it's the best case that can be made.

The astralization/ creation of the Ba soul is certainly effected in the Underworld, it's nature then is to fly outward and upwards into the night sky, as a hawk. Sokar then effects this in the underworld, what then can be said about the astral correspondance of Orion is that this was celebrated at the appropriate time of year in terms of the cycles of nature and rebirth which were reflective of the daily Solar rebirth mysteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

SC: I didn't bring a debate to you. I put a paper up in the OP that posters here thought they could just kick around. I tend to kick back. I'm sure you've noticed.

KS: Indeed I've noticed. You hang in there quite well. Still, you've been around UM a long time—longer than I have—so you know perfectly well what you were going to encounter.

SC: You bet I do.

KS: This isn't ATS or Atlantis Rising, where [sic]from what I've seen so many posters seem to lack the ability to apply critical thinking. Here at UM we bite.

SC: I have only ever felt the tickle of a slight nibble.

KS: So if you were expecting all of us—or even most of us—to sit back and agree and pat you on the back, you were fooling yourself.

SC: I post here because I know EXACTLY how your little coterie of co-dependant reactionaries (aka psycophant apologists) will react. And you did as I thought you would and helped me test my theory. Thank you.

KS: We will address your paper in the manner it needs to be addressed.

SC: I wouldn’t expect anything less from you.

KS: My point was that you cannot use a state of the religion from more than a millennium later to try to bolster your claims in the Old Kingdom.

SC: That’s not why I posted those images. QM said Orion was not present in any AE imagery. I presented those (later) images to show that he was wrong.

KS: Where questionmark and I would most certainly agree, as would all of the others involved in this debate—and as would the academic world—is that you can't use Dynasty 4 to prove an Egyptian observance of Orion.

SC: Except there exists the math of three great big monuments at Giza that proves you are wrong and I am correct.

KS: And bear in mind at all times: you've presented no evidence to date that proves your Orion argument about the Giza Plateau in the Old Kingdom. You've presented only your own personal belief about it.

SC: Saying there’s no evidence won’t make the evidence go away. You can wish it away in your own mind if you wish – but in the cold light of day, my friend, it will still be there.

The Giza-Orion Blueprint

Precession of the Queens

The math proves my case. Now if you think the Gizamids are simply the result of random dimensions and placement, that they are in no way connected to Orion’s Belt, then try this little challenge:

The Challenge

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

Now throw the three bases randomly to the floor. Observe the random pattern made by the three centres of these three cards. You may move your centre base fractionally in any direction. (Afterall, G2 is not exactly in its exact Belt star position, so fair's fair).

Now, using these three centres marked on your three bases, follow the procedure outlined in the GSF presentation above and try and recreate your three bases (from the three centre dots) in the order they have fallen and in the shape and proportions they have been made by your three friends. (You might find it helpful to photograph the arrangement with a digital camera, upload the image into Powerpoint or whatever and attempt the procedure that way. Saves a lot of time crawling about the floor).

If the first arrangement of the centres doesn't produce a match in orientation, order, shape and proportion to your three bases then throw your three cut-out bases to the ground again and repeat. Keep repeating until you find a configuration of your three base centres that can reproduce the actual bases themselves (including their order, orientation, relative proportions etc).

If the Gizamids had been defined in the manner I propose i.e. using the Orion GSF but had been laid out on the ground at Giza, say, in a straight east-west line and in a different order, it would have been infinitely more difficult for me - or anyone - to discover this simple technique or the correct star asterism used to achieve those proportions. However, the fact that the builders actually laid down the Gizamids in pretty much the same way that their proportions, shapes and orientations were designed helped immensely to discovering the technique and the correct star asterism that was used to define them.

Can you get the three centres of your randomly created bases to reproduce your three random bases in the correct order, with the correct proportions and orientation using the GSF process? What you will find is that, it is virtually impossible to do. For the pattern created by your three bases to then produce the actual dimensions, orientations etc of those bases is somewhere in the region of 280 trillion to one. You’d find it easier by far to find someone with the same DNA as yourself. And DNA is accepted in most courts across the world as definitive proof. The concordance between the pattern of the Gizamids (i.e. the Orion Belt asterism) and the Gizamids is simply too improbable to have been the result of simple happenchance. We must conclude, therefore, that these structures are indeed the result of preconceived design. There is simply no doubt about it.

KS: I've allowed others to dissect your astronomical arguments while keeping my distance from them because I am not well versed in archaeoastronomy, but I always chuckle over your lines and measurements based on drawings and images that are considerably less in precision than the sort of survey plats you actually need.

SC: My lines and drawings produce a 100% agreement between the ratios of G1 to G2 and over 98% agreement between G2 and G3 – that is, statistically speaking, significant (as any statistician will tell you).

KS: I've also noticed you tend to ignore many if not most of my own points based on archaeology and the culture and religion of pharaonic Egypt.

SC: Because as I have said to you – the Giza-Orion association was not about religion but about TIME. As far as I am concerned, whatever cultural or religious ideas evolved after the pyramid Recovery Vaults had served their purpose is largely immaterial to my research. Certainly we can understand how religious ideas associating the early, giant pyramids with ideas relating to ‘rebirth/revivication’ would have arisen because that is what they effectively did (as Recovery Vaults) for the kingdom (as opposed to the king). The later religion and religious texts may hint at the pyramid’s original function as Recovery Vaults which is interesting but certainly it is a mistake to back-project religious ideas from later dynasties onto an earlier culture of which – relatively speaking – much less is actually known.

KS: I've been waiting and hoping you'd pop in, Swede.

SC: I’m sure you were – need all the help you can muster. I guess you are much more used to sending people with alternative ideas away with a flea in their ear. You don’t really like it too much when there is someone who can unpick your own arguments, do you?

KS: Thanks for shedding some reality on the situation.

SC: That reality being that there are many scientists around the world who have deep reservations about C14 dating and, indeed, the method used to calibrate its erroneous results, dendrochronology, which is also beset with a whole menagerie of its own problems. Best not go there, eh?

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a problem as such, but one can only consider the case i've made in terms of probabilities, from the known attestations of Sokar during the 4th Dynasty, through to the Pyramid texts, and then what was involved during the New Kingdom, but like i said, it's the best case that can be made.

The astralization/ creation of the Ba soul is certainly effected in the Underworld, it's nature then is to fly outward and upwards into the night sky, as a hawk. Sokar then effects this in the underworld, what then can be said about the astral correspondance of Orion is that this was celebrated at the appropriate time of year in terms of the cycles of nature and rebirth which were reflective of the daily Solar rebirth mysteries.

There were no pyramid text in the 4th dynasty, at least not any we know. The oldest one was found in Saqqara in the 5th dynasty, and they don't say anything about no astral travel but are concerned with protecting the soul of the Pharaoh in the underworld. But you don't have to take my word for it Mercer's translation is available online Doesn't say anything about the Pharaoh popping up to the upper world either. And, unless Alzheimer's has already gotten me there is no mention of Sokar, I can't remember any reference in the older versions of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no pyramid text in the 4th dynasty, at least not any we know. The oldest one was found in Saqqara in the 5th dynasty, and they don't say anything about no astral travel but are concerned with protecting the soul of the Pharaoh in the underworld. But you don't have to take my word for it Mercer's translation is available online Doesn't say anything about the Pharaoh popping up to the upper world either. And, unless Alzheimer's has already gotten me there is no mention of Sokar, I can't remember any reference in the older versions of them.

The 4th Dynasty attestations of Sokar are from tombs of the Giza Necropolis...obviously not the Royal ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The 4th Dynasty attestations of Sokar are from tombs of the Giza Necropolis...obviously not the Royal ones.

Correct, but we are again 100 years past Khufu, and the gentleman was at the same time priest of the Khufu cult which Khufu himself has created. Again no evidence of an existence of the cult prior to Khufu. And certainly no Orion link either.

Edit:If you need to know, the guy's name was Washptah overseer of the Wabet craftsmen and was found in a tomb originally intended for Queen Khamerernebty II, whose body never was found though her name is found in the tomb. There are two possible explanations: 1) she was not buried there or 2) she was evacuated to make place for the above mentioned Washptah, which certainly would not have happened during the 4th dynasty.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, but we are again 100 years past Khufu, and the gentleman was at the same time priest of the Khufu cult which Khufu himself has created. Again no evidence of an existence of the cult prior to Khufu. And certainly no Orion link either.

Edit:If you need to know, the guy's name was Washptah overseer of the Wabet craftsmen and was found in a tomb originally intended for Queen Khamerernebty II, whose body never was found though her name is found in the tomb. There are two possible explanations: 1) she was not buried there or 2) she was evacuated to make place for the above mentioned Washptah, which certainly would not have happened during the 4th dynasty.

A cult of Sokar is also attested through the adoption of the Deity as a personal name, such as

]Nesy-Sokar is also described as beloved of the goddess, Neith. She is shown standing on the doorjamb of the chapel in the traditional pose: one arm raised on her breast and the other behind her back. Based on the pottery, names, and titles found in association with the tombs, the cemetery was begun as early as the reign of Khufu in Dynasty 4 and continued through the end of Dynasty 5, from ca. 2551 to 2323 B.C.[/b]

http://guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm

Or Third Dynasty Saqqara;

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/saqqara/khabausokar/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I posted an article I thought some readers here might find interesting. Don't blame me if people start asking questions about it and I decide to answer them (or not, as the case may be). I have posted other items on this site which I think the UM community might find interesting or useful and which I don't necessarily wish to get into a discussion about like e.g. my recent thread with the link to the Giza Virtual Tour.

If I want to discuss, I will. But I am not obligated to. Don't you understand the difference?

Oh I do understand the difference but to me posting on a discussion board without wanting to actually discuss what you post is like going to the grocery store with no intention of buying groceries. In neither case are you required to but it does seem strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A cult of Sokar is also attested through the adoption of the Deity as a personal name, such as

http://guardians.net...s/buildtomb.htm

Or Third Dynasty Saqqara;

http://www.digitaleg...okar/index.html

Well, what now is Nesy Sokar? the beloved of Neith as Hawass claims or the beloved of Sokar as you claim? Or do we have an error in translation and instead of 706.gif818.gif we have hiero_R25.png210.gif? transliterated they both would be pretty similar.

Edit, kmt, who is way more literate in hieroglyphs may correct me..

2nd edit: Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy discussing this with you because at least you bother to find references instead of passing off your story par ordre de Mufti.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Scott Creighton

You should check out the supposed Cygnus-Giza correlation (Not that I believe in that correlation any more than I do the supposed Orion-Giza correlation). If I remember from reading something about it awhile back, The fit of the stars to the pyramids is closer than that of Orion's belt and they didn't have to flip the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I do understand the difference but to me posting on a discussion board without wanting to actually discuss what you post is like going to the grocery store with no intention of buying groceries. In neither case are you required to but it does seem strange.

SC: Nothing strange about it at all - except perhaps to you. Think of it as 'audience targetting'. I post it where I think there will be most interest. In the same way I also posted the Giza Virtual Tour thread - where I consider there will be more interest. Blogging is a hit and miss affair.

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Scott Creighton

You should check out the supposed Cygnus-Giza correlation (Not that I believe in that correlation any more than I do the supposed Orion-Giza correlation). If I remember from reading something about it awhile back, The fit of the stars to the pyramids is closer than that of Orion's belt and they didn't have to flip the map.

In fact there are over 17,000 possible combinations if we just take visible stars with a North South (or South North, take it as you wish) alignment, if we take the pyramid patterns within an error margin of 7% we still have several hundred matches, within 5% a dozen and within 1% none. So just because it "looks like it" does not make it relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ Scott Creighton

You should check out the supposed Cygnus-Giza correlation (Not that I believe in that correlation any more than I do the supposed Orion-Giza correlation). If I remember from reading something about it awhile back, The fit of the stars to the pyramids is closer than that of Orion's belt and they didn't have to flip the map.

SC: Giza-Orion isn't flipped either. You just have to appreciate the AE's worldview whereby they regarded south as 'up'. Or would you like to refute that?

As for Cygnus - it's wrong. I've read Andy Collins' theory and - it's wrong. I could come up with numerous triads of stars that better match the Giza centres, some even better than Cygnus. Doesn't make them right just because their centre-to-centre concordance is more accurate. The Orion Belt stars creates a Geo-Stellar Fingerptint (GSF) that agrees extraordinarily well with the relative proportions and orientations of the actual Gizamids. Have a look at the GSF for the three Cygnus stars in my paper in the OP. You will see that they in no way agree with the relative proportions of the Gizamids or their relative orientations. Furthermore, the two sets of so-called Queens pyramids agree with the two culminations of Orion's Belt. Show me how these structures agree with the two culminations of the wings of Cygnus. You can't because they simply do not and cannot. Like I said - Cygnus is wrong. It's Orion's Belt - plain and simple.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What do you think I have been presenting this past week or so? Yes - there existed a plan that was prepared before a single block was set in place at Giza. My paper in the OP shows the plan step-by-step. Obviously you didn't read it. No surprise there.

I know you have been presenting this as planned from the start, but that is a circular argument. You argue the Giza pyramids layout is what it is because of the (unattested) significance of Orion's Belt to 4th Dynasty beliefs, but then you insert Orion's Belt into 4th Dynasty beliefs because of the layout of the Giza pyramids.

Your only evidence is your own theory, which means you have no evidence at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Giza-Orion isn't flipped either. You just have to appreciate the AE's worldview whereby they regarded south as 'up'. Or would you like to refute that?

As for Cygnus - it's wrong. I've read Andy Collins' theory and - it's wrong. I could come up with numerous triads of stars that better match the Giza centres, some even better than Cygnus. Doesn't make them right just because their centre-to-centre concordance is more accurate. The Orion Belt stars creates a Geo-Stellar Fingerptint (GSF) that agrees extraordinarily well with the relative proportions and orientations of the actual Gizamids. Have a look at the GSF for the three Cygnus stars in my paper in the OP. You will see that they in no way agree with the relative proportions of the Gizamids or their relative orientations. Furthermore, the two sets of so-called Queens pyramids agree with the two culminations of Orion's Belt. Show me how these structures agree with the two culminations of the wings of Cygnus. You can't because they simply do not and cannot. Like I said - Cygnus is wrong. It's Orion's Belt - plain and simple.

Best wishes,

SC

You have claimed that the Giza plateau was planned out and that the AE's viewed the south as up. In neither case have you provided citations or links to any materials that would back up those claims making them nothing more than unevidenced beliefs. In fact, when Leonardo asked for any kind of evidence of the AE's viewing south as up, your reply was that it wouldn't change his mind so why should you supply anything to back up that claim. Though I have not been on UM as long as others, your reply fits the standard one made by those that have no evidence.

It is fact that if you overlay Orion's belt with the Giza Pyramids as they sit, the alignment you refer to does not exist.

It is fact that the pyramid map's orientation must be changed for the alignment to which you refer to be there.

It matters not how you try to spin it or use unevidenced beliefs to validate it, it remains invalid unless you can show through evidence that the AE's did plan out the Giza plateau and that they did view south as up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have claimed that the Giza plateau was planned out and that the AE's viewed the south as up. In neither case have you provided citations or links to any materials that would back up those claims making them nothing more than unevidenced beliefs. In fact, when Leonardo asked for any kind of evidence of the AE's viewing south as up, your reply was that it wouldn't change his mind so why should you supply anything to back up that claim. Though I have not been on UM as long as others, your reply fits the standard one made by those that have no evidence.

It is fact that if you overlay Orion's belt with the Giza Pyramids as they sit, the alignment you refer to does not exist.

It is fact that the pyramid map's orientation must be changed for the alignment to which you refer to be there.

It matters not how you try to spin it or use unevidenced beliefs to validate it, it remains invalid unless you can show through evidence that the AE's did plan out the Giza plateau and that they did view south as up.

It should also be noted that since Khafre's pyramid does in fact have a satellite, GIIa, then he must also explain its position in the context of an alleged Giza-Orion layout.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence?

Folks here like to claim that my theories “have no evidence”. They make this statement, one can only conclude, more in hope than anything else. They claim that there is no evidence that Giza was a preconceived, unified plan. Well, let’s look at the actual evidence – what does the actual evidence at Giza present to us? Are there any indications in the extant structures there that might lend support to my contention that Giza is the result of a unified plan (based on Orion’s Belt stars)?

Well, first of all have a look at the three images below:

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Slide3.JPG

Now, if G1 or G3 were slightly different in size or G1 or G3 were placed on a different position on the plateau, the inter-quarter line relationship that we easily observe between these two structures would completely break down. If anyone considers this geometric relationship between G1 and G3 to be the result of simple coincidence then they are simple deluding themselves.

Notice also how the inter-quarter line relationship between G1 and G3 also extends through G1a and all three G3 queens. Again, if these so-called ‘queens pyramids’ were placed elsewhere then this geometric relationship would instantly break down. Of course, the deniers often claim that as these are geometric forms they will inevitably form such geometric relationships. This is untrue. To demonstrate this let us assume for a moment that the Giza pyramids were laid down in a slightly different order along the strike of the plateau (see images below):

Slide2.JPG

Slide3.JPG

As can be observed in the two images above showing the Giza pyramids in a slightly different order on the plateau, the geometric inter-quarter relationships completely fail.

Again, mainstream Egyptology apologists will insist this is all just some remarkable coincidence. They will deny real evidence that is patently before their eyes. They will deny it because they do not wish to accept it. And they do this because evidence of preconceived plan at Giza completely undermines their tomb theory (of which they have no evidence in any case).

But there is more – much, much more. Again the mainstream Egyptology apologists will deny it and downplay its importance.

Now consider the image below:

Figure%203.8%20JPEG%20Greyscale.jpg

The circle in the above image circumscribes the three most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field i.e. NE corner of G1, NE corner of G1a and SW corner of G1c. Now look closely at the circle – see how the Sphinx ends up sitting right on the circle’s perimeter! Notice also that the centre of the circle lands almost perfectly on the centre Belt star (Al Nilam). Now, any three non-linear points can be connected by a circle. If you create three random (non-linear) dots on a sheet of paper, you will always be able to find a circle that can connect all three points. Trying this with four random (non-linear) dots is a completely different matter. You will be extremely fortunate indeed to find a circle that will connect all four of your random points. This problem is further compounded when you also try to create a fifth random dot that will land on the centre of your circle. This then presents an outcome that is virtually impossible to achieve by random chance. And yet this is precisely what we have presented to us at Giza. The three outermost points of the Giza pyramid field bring the Sphinx (our fourth point) right onto the circle’s perimeter. A fifth point, the circle’s centre, lands almost perfectly on the centre Belt Star, Al Nilam (with the other two Belt stars placed on G1 and G3 centres).

These further geometric relationships exist and are there for all to see and test for themselves and they, together with the inter-quarter geometric relationships, present clear evidence of a unified plan in the layout of the Giza monuments. These were absolutely not placed in a random manner as mainstream apologists would have us believe. But again the deniers will continue to deny and discredit what is patently on show for us at Giza.

Continued.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Continued from previous….

Now in the image above we can see that whilst the centre of the circle lands on the centre Belt star, Al Nilam, we can see that the centre of the middle pyramid, G2, is slightly off its centre Belt star position. Again, the deniers will insist that this is proof that the Giza centres do not match the Belt star asterism even although the actual error is very small and, as such, the Orion-Giza connection is discredited. This small error in the positioning of G2 is perfectly explainable when we consider the topography of the Giza plateau. Consider the topographic plan of Giza below:

6.%20Figure%206.%20Topographical%20map%20of%20Giza%20showing%20G2%20was%20moved%20from%20Al%20Nilam%20centre%20and%20positioned%20slightly%20south%20and%20west%20around%20rock%20outcrop.jpg

We can see the Belt stars (red dots) overlaid onto the pyramid centres. G1 and G2 are in place but G2, as noted, is slightly off its proper Belt star position. The grey shaded areas in the drawing represent the position of the pyramids as they are actually positioned on the plateau. We can see the contour lines of the plateau.

If we now zoom into the G2 location (image below) what we find is a steep incline of rock to the west and south of the blue outline of G2. (This blue outline represents G2’s Belt star position). To have place G2 at its true Belt star position would have meant the western and southern flanks of the pyramid would have been built on the steep incline, causing all manner of construction and instability issues. The builders had two choices: they could completely level this rock outcrop or they could simply move G2 slightly in order that the rock outcrop would be fully incorporated into the body of the pyramid. The builders took the second, slightly easier option thus ensuring the pyramid’s stability. And we know for certain that G2 had originally been planned to be sited slightly further north on the plateau nearer to its Belt star position due to the original entrance constructed on the plateau which had to be changed and moved slightly further south to ensure the body of G2 fully incorporated the rock outcrop that would otherwise have compromised the pyramid’s stability.

G2-Topology.jpg

But how would the inter-quarter geometric relationships look if G2 had actually been placed on the plateau at its proper Belt star (Al Nilam) position? Surely then the inter-quarter geometric relationships between G2 and the other two pyramids will fail? Amazingly, G2 slots into the inter-quarter relationships between G1 and G3 like a glove, evidence once more that G2 was shifted from its proper planned position on the plateau (see image below):

Slide1.JPG

Now, once again, the chances of such an outcome occurring by random chance are infinitely large. But the deniers will continue to claim this is all just one big happy coincidence; that the Ancient Egyptians managed to create all these quite incredible geometric relationships through simple chance. Their claim is, of course, absolute bunkum. It is bunkum because the math simply does not support such a claim.

But how did these inter-quarter geometric relationships come about? What could have caused them? Well, there is a mighty big clue at Giza in the arrangement of the main Giza pyramids – Orion’s Belt. As noted by Robert Bauval and a number of other earlier researchers, the Giza pyramid centres present an uncanny similarity to the pattern of the Orion Belt stars. But not only this – what these particular stars can also do is allow us to create three bases whose relative proportions match the relative proportions, order and orientation of the main Giza pyramids. You can see this here.

Now, using the above technique to generate the three relative proportions of the Giza pyramids also creates the geometric inter-quarter line relationships between G1-G2-G3. In using the Belt Stars in this manner we can create the relative base dimensions to a high degree of accuracy. This design method allows us to explain how G3 comes to be so much smaller than G1 and G2. It also explains why G3 comes to be a very slight rectangle shape rather than square(ish) like G2 and G1. It explains how G2 comes to be slightly smaller than G1. It explains the inter-quarter relationships between the structures we find on the plateau, G1 and G3 (and G2 when centred on its Belt Star GSF position). In short, this technique helps to explain a whole lot about the Giza structures that mainstream Egyptologists and their apologists simply struggle with.

Again, however, the deniers will insist the above technique is all just a remarkable coincidence. How many remarkable coincidences must it take before it eventually sinks into the minds of such people that their continued denial of this evidence is stretching mathematics and probability to breaking point? How easy is it to produce all these remarkable coincidences by random chance? Well, to prove the futility of such a thought, the deniers should attempt the following challenge. Only then might it sink home to them the utter improbability of this outcome at Giza being the result of random chance and that it must, without a shadow of a doubt, be considered a planned design.

The Challenge

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

Now throw the three bases randomly to the floor. Observe the random pattern made by the three centres of these three cards. You may move your centre base fractionally in any direction. (Afterall, G2 is not exactly on its exact Belt star position, so fair's fair).

Now, using these three centres marked on your three bases, follow the procedure outlined in the GSF presentation above and try and recreate your three bases (from the three centre dots) in the order they have fallen and in the shape and proportions they have been made by your three friends. (You might find it helpful to photograph the arrangement with a digital camera, upload the image into Powerpoint or whatever and attempt the procedure that way. Saves a lot of time crawling about the floor).

If the first arrangement of the centres doesn't produce a match in orientation, order, shape and proportion to your three bases then throw your three cut-out bases to the ground again and repeat. Keep repeating until you find a configuration of your three base centres that can reproduce the actual bases themselves (including their order, orientation, relative proportions etc).

If the Gizamids had been defined in the manner I propose i.e. using the Orion GSF but had been laid out on the ground at Giza, say, in a straight east-west line and in a different order, it would have been infinitely more difficult for me - or anyone - to discover this simple technique or the correct star asterism used to achieve those proportions. However, the fact that the builders actually laid down the Gizamids in pretty much the same way that their proportions, shapes, order and orientations were designed helped immensely to discovering the technique and the correct star asterism that was used to define them.

So, can you get the three centres of your randomly created bases to reproduce your three random bases in the correct order, with the correct proportions and orientation using the GSF process? What you will find is that, it is virtually impossible to do. For the pattern created by your three bases to then produce the actual dimensions, orientations etc of those bases is somewhere in the region of 280 trillion to one. You’d find it easier by far to find someone with the same DNA as yourself. And DNA is accepted in most courts across the world as definitive proof. The concordance between the pattern of the Gizamids (i.e. the Orion Belt asterism) and the Gizamids is simply too improbable to have been the result of simple happenchance. We must conclude, therefore, that these structures are indeed the result of preconceived design. There is simply no doubt about it.

Anther thing the Egyptologists and their apologists fail to sensibly explain is the fact that G2 – unlike G1 and G3 - has no so-called queen’s pyramids. The answer is simple – these are not queens pyramids at all but represent another important attribute of the Orion Belt stars – their precessional culminations of which there are two; on the eastern horizon where Khufu’s ‘queens’ stand and another on the south-western horizon where Menkaure’s ‘queens’ stand. These two sets of three pyramids are actually the two culmination markers of Orion’s Belt. And since there are only two culminations in the precessional cycle, (on the eastern and south-western horizons) this is why Khafre’s pyramid (G2) has none of these precessional markers. See here.

Fig%202.7.4.jpg

But what’s it all about? Why have all these pyramids been laid out so particularly on the Giza plateau?

As presented in a number of my articles and books, I present the theory that the relatively sudden emergence of the giant, pre-fifth dynasty pyramids of ancient Egypt came about in response to an unfolding natural disaster of epic proportions in ancient Egypt (and the wider world). A series of catastrophic droughts had, over time, brought the country to its knees (and would heavily contribute to its eventual collapse). These droughts were, in my opinion, likely to have been the result of a sudden perturbation of the Earth's rotational axis which, according to some evidence, would have ultimately shifted the latitude of Giza some 6.5 degrees nearer to the equator.

To the ancient Egyptian astronomer-priests, this disturbance of the Earth's axis would have seemed as if the sky had fallen; that the four pillars they believed held up the sky (the four sons of the sky god, Horus) had fallen. This ‘fallen sky’ would have been an ill omen since the waters of the great flood promised by the AE god Thoth that was to come and drown all of Egypt were to come from the heavens "...at the usual interval... like a pestilence..." To the ancient Egyptians this fall of the sky followed by serious climatic change would have seemed like the end of the world was upon them.

Their desire to save themselves from this dire situation i.e. to raise up the sky (the four pillars of the sky) can be seen in their Raising of the Djed ceremony. This enigmatic ancient Egyptian symbol, the Djed pillar, has been described as a composite of the four sky pillars viewed side-on (figure 1). The Djed is also closely associated with the AE god of rebirth/regeneration, Osiris - and for good reason as we shall see later.

The Djed Pillar

djed.jpg

Raising the Djed Ceremony

raising-Djed.jpg

Confronted with such a dire scenario where they could not have possibly known the long-term effects of this unfolding calamity, the ancient Egyptians had a simple choice: they could do nothing and risk their civilisation disappearing forever should the very worst effects of the fallen sky (the axis disturbance) come to pass or they could attempt to set in motion a 'national disaster recovery plan' that would at least afford them the possibility (though by no means the certainty) of kick-starting their civilisation again after the worst effects of the cataclysm had passed.

To this end the decision was made and a plan was set in motion to construct a series of colossal, stone 'Recovery Vaults'. The key to the success of these Recovery Vaults would be in their strength and, just as importantly, in their high visibility. These vaults HAD to be built so massive that they simply could not be missed on the landscape for miles around. Having to build so big would naturally require the most stable of structures and in ancient times there was only one such structural form that could offer the ancient builders the stability they sought in such a monumental construction - the pyramid. Quite simply - in ancient times there was no alternative to the pyramid form if the desire was to build BIG.

Naturally it made sense to build as many pyramid Recovery Vaults as possible and as quickly as possible thus we find, for example, the first king of the 4th dynasty, Sneferu (Khufu's father), building a total of four pyramids (some better than others) and built/modified (at least) two of them concurrently. His son, Khufu, also built (at least) four pyramids including the Great Pyramid at Giza as did Khufu’s grandson, Menkaure.

As stated, these structures would be built to last and, naturally, should be so massive to ensure high visibility thus easy discovery and would have a number of internal chambers in order to provide as much internal storage space as possible. Into these vaults would be stored all the essentials that would be needed to assist in the revivication of the kingdom - pots, vases, plates, seeds (wheat, barley etc), tools, weapons, sacred texts etc. Preservation that would (hopefully) lead to a rebirth of the kingdom. It is not too much of a stretch to see how such a concept born out of a practical need in desperate circumstances, could have been adopted and adapted by later Egyptian kings whereby the preservation and placement of their own bodies into such an edifice might ensure their own 'revivication' and afterlife. Rather than the 'tomb of king', the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids should actually be thought of as the 'womb of the kingdom' - just as the mythological precursor - the primeval mound of creation - was regarded. Out of this primeval mound, the Earth was born. The pyramids - symbolising the primeval mound - would ensure the Earth was reborn.

Whilst all pre-fifth dynasty pyramids would be utilised for the function of Recovery Vaults (even those pyramids that were not perfect pyramids such as the Bent pyramid at Dahshur), the pyramids at Giza appear also to have had a secondary function in that the position of each structure there (including the Sphinx) was carefully planned in order to present an astronomical timeline indicating the time when this calamity befell the ancient kingdom. This dating of the calamity was achieved by utilising the precessional motion of the Belt stars of the Orion constellation, a constellation we know that later Egyptian dynasties had a particular reverence for - and, in our considered view, for good reason. The means by which the dating was achieved is explained This thread here.

In effect then, Giza represents the culmination of the national recovery plan with its various internal (and some external) recovery vaults but also (in the clever arrangement of its structures) presents the astronomical timeline marking the time when the ‘sky fell’.

Evidence of the pyramid Recovery Vaults can be found at Saqqara where the world’s very first pyramid – the Step Pyramid of Djoser – was found to contain tens of thousands of stone vessels and large quantities of seed – wheat, barley, grape and a whole host of other seed.

There is no evidence of any kings from this period having been buried in any of these early, giant pyramids.

This, in a nutshell is the basic premise of the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT).

If anyone thinks there is no evidence to support the RVT and a connection between the Giza pyramids and Orion’s Belt then go through this thread. If you still believe there is no evidence, go through it again. If you continue to deny the evidence then I suggest you are simply kidding yourself on and that no amount of evidence would ever sway you from what you actually want to believe (which if it is the tomb theory, there is simply no real evidence to support that theory).

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: That reality being that there are many scientists around the world who have deep reservations about C14 dating and, indeed, the method used to calibrate its erroneous results, dendrochronology, which is also beset with a whole menagerie of its own problems. Best not go there, eh?

Best wishes,

SC

Let us investigate this claim as per the references that you provided in your post # 52.

Reference #1 - This reference is from 1981, over 30 years ago. As per the much more current references recently provided, a great deal of highly qualified research has been conducted in regards to the refinement and calibration of radiocarbon dating in the last 30 years. When the initial article was written, such technologies as AMS and protein-specific collagen extraction did not yet exist. The supplied quote is also out of context and has been manipulated by creationist supporters in venues such as the following (your source?).

http://www.creationi...cles/quotes.htm

Now, let us look at a more comprehensive and accurate discussion of the topic, also from a Christian perspective:

http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

Reference #2 - This reference has already been addressed, though it should be again noted that the lead author of Centuries of Darkness is a professional writer. Further investigation into the contributing authors has not yet been personally conducted, though, as per the above and the following, there may be a pattern to your references.

Reference #3 - David Down would appear to have little or no advanced technical training as an archaeologist. Despite whatever claims he may make, he would appear to be basically a volunteer/dilettante. Possibly you have more information? In addition, Down is one of those that promotes "re-adjusting" currently understood Egyptian chronologies to better "fit" the Bible. And in a radical manner. He also references the likes of David Rohl. If you choose to utilize a quote, you may wish to provide the complete reference. For the benefit of others:

http://creation.com/...g-is-everything

Reference #4 - Walt Brown has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and spent much of his professional life in the military. He is also a rather extreme Young Earth Creationist (YEC). The book that you reference is self-published and has a following amongst the YEC believers. His "works" have been highly critiqued:

http://ncse.com/cej/...st-walter-brown

http://mypage.direct...iter/hydro.html

Will once again provide one of the previous references in the hopes that you may take the time to actually read it.

http://researchcommo...1FB6?sequence=1

Additional references:

http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

http://www.radiocarbon.org/

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for my inactivity this evening. I hope everyone continues to carry on the good fight, and more thanks to Swede for illuminating the bible-scientist bent behind Scott's earlier citations on C14 dating. Hopefully I'll return to the discussion tomorrow at some point, and I'd especially like to address some points Scott made in his most recent detailed post. This evening, however, I am busy setting up a new laptop. Too much work and not enough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Researchers Unearths Earliest Western Sculptures and Astronomical Alignments in Peru

In one of the most significant archaeological and anthropological finds in recent history, Robert Benfer, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, has

discovered the earliest astronomical alignments and sculptures in the round, which is a sculpture designed to be viewed from many directions and angles, in the New World in Buena Vista, Peru.

The Temple of the Fox, an ancient structure in the Chillon Valley that dates back to 2200 B.C., contains sculptures of unprecedented artistic style that can be associated with the agricultural calendar and Andean myth.

"There hasn't been an archaeological finding like this since the early 1980s," Benfer said. "The Temple of the Fox is 1,000 years older than anything of its kind found before. It's also significant because it suggests people organized their lives around Andean constellations and provides evidence of the beginning of flood-plain agriculture."

http://anthropologis...-new-world.html

Ancient South American Cosmology:

Four Thousand Years of the Myth of the Fox

Robert A. Benfer, Ph.D.1, Louanna Furbee, Ph.D.1, and Hugo Ludeña R., Ph.D.2

1Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri‐Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211 USA

2Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Facultad de Humanidades, Escuela Profesional de Antropología y Arqueología. Dirección postal: Av. La Colmena 262, Lima 1, Perú.

http://journalofcosm...tronomy120.html

There are more and more of the ancient sites that are now being re examined in China that is revealing a level of solar/stellar understanding not appreciated by the early "experts" burdened with the task of initial examination/discoveries.

Humans have been examining the skies for a long long time, they might not express the knowledge in ways that is familiar to "modern science" but it is none the less not any less sophisticated.

here we waste pages and pages of forum space and time arguing about "up" and "down"

thanks a lot ....

~~edit : spellcheck blindspot

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let us investigate this claim as per the references that you provided in your post # 52.

Reference #1 - This reference is from 1981, over 30 years ago. As per the much more current references recently provided, a great deal of highly qualified research has been conducted in regards to the refinement and calibration of radiocarbon dating in the last 30 years. When the initial article was written, such technologies as AMS and protein-specific collagen extraction did not yet exist. The supplied quote is also out of context and has been manipulated by creationist supporters in venues such as the following (your source?).

http://www.creationi...cles/quotes.htm

Now, let us look at a more comprehensive and accurate discussion of the topic, also from a Christian perspective:

http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

Reference #2 - This reference has already been addressed, though it should be again noted that the lead author of Centuries of Darkness is a professional writer. Further investigation into the contributing authors has not yet been personally conducted, though, as per the above and the following, there may be a pattern to your references.

Reference #3 - David Down would appear to have little or no advanced technical training as an archaeologist. Despite whatever claims he may make, he would appear to be basically a volunteer/dilettante. Possibly you have more information? In addition, Down is one of those that promotes "re-adjusting" currently understood Egyptian chronologies to better "fit" the Bible. And in a radical manner. He also references the likes of David Rohl. If you choose to utilize a quote, you may wish to provide the complete reference. For the benefit of others:

http://creation.com/...g-is-everything

Reference #4 - Walt Brown has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and spent much of his professional life in the military. He is also a rather extreme Young Earth Creationist (YEC). The book that you reference is self-published and has a following amongst the YEC believers. His "works" have been highly critiqued:

http://ncse.com/cej/...st-walter-brown

http://mypage.direct...iter/hydro.html

Will once again provide one of the previous references in the hopes that you may take the time to actually read it.

http://researchcommo...1FB6?sequence=1

Additional references:

http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

http://www.radiocarbon.org/

.

SC: For every link you post supporting the C14 method, I can provide one that calls the technique into question. And that's the POINT. The method is predicated upon certain conditions/assumptions and the more we understand those conditons/assumptions, the more unreliability is placed on C14 as an accurate/reliable dating technique. Is it any wonder that Archaeologists such as Zahi Hawass prefer other methods of dating and regard C14 as unhelpful and a mere window-dressing?

Here's just one scientific article the contends that C14 dates could be wrong by as much as 10,000 years. There are countless other scientific articles like this so it is little wonder that there is such skepticism within a large body of the scientific community regarding this dating method.

Carbon dating 'might be wrong by 10,000 years'

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

12:01AM BST 30 Jun 2001

SCIENTISTS say their key tool for dating ancient artefacts might be wrong by 10,000 years, which could push back the timing of key events in history and improve understanding of climate change.

Their study could force a reappraisal of when certain events occurred, notably in the period when modern humans lived alongside Neanderthals in Europe. It suggests that modern humans might have lived in Europe for longer than thought and that prehistoric paintings recently found in the Chauvet cave, in southern France, might be 38,000-years-old rather than the estimated 33,000 years.

An Anglo-American team found large variations in levels of the carbon-14 isotope, used as the basis of carbon dating, preserved in a 19in stalagmite recovered from a submerged cave in the Blue Holes of the Bahamas, limestone caverns created when sea levels were nearly 330ft lower than today.

These findings suggested dramatic changes in the amount of radioactive carbon in Earth's atmosphere during the last Ice Age, much greater than previously thought, probably as a result of changes in the strength of the planet's magnetic field.

The field shields Earth from cosmic rays that create carbon-14 in the atmosphere, altering levels of the isotope during the past 45,000 years.

"Beyond about 20,000 years ago there are some dramatic swings in radiocarbon concentration, which means the age offset between the radiocarbon age and true calendar age can be up to 8,000 years," said Dr David Richards of the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, who made the study with colleagues in Arizona and Minnesota.

Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14, is less reliable if an artefact is older than 16,000 years. But the changes in radiocarbon, and dating, fluctuate greatly up to 45,000 years, the limit of the study. - Source.

If you wish to believe the method is reliable then that's your choice. But therein lies the crux of the issue - in science it shouldn't really be a matter of choice since there should be no doubt. There is doubt - a lot of it. And Dr Hawass knows it too.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My apologies for my inactivity this evening. I hope everyone continues to carry on the good fight, and more thanks to Swede for illuminating the bible-scientist bent behind Scott's earlier citations on C14 dating. Hopefully I'll return to the discussion tomorrow at some point, and I'd especially like to address some points Scott made in his most recent detailed post. This evening, however, I am busy setting up a new laptop. Too much work and not enough time.

SC: With respect - but I don't give a hee-haw about a person's religious views. What matters to me is the science they present and whether or not it is valid. That you should make their religious views an issue is thoroughly deplorable and repugnant. Are we to now ignore those scientists who present good, solid scientific information simply because they go to church?

I have seen some stoop to low levels on this board to score some petty point. This is a new low - the lowest of the low. Reprehensible and you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Disgusted.

Scott Creighton

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond about 20,000 years ago there are some dramatic swings in radiocarbon concentration, which means the age offset between the radiocarbon age and true calendar age can be up to 8,000 years," said Dr David Richards of the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, who made the study with colleagues in Arizona and Minnesota.

Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14, is less reliable if an artefact is older than 16,000 years. But the changes in radiocarbon, and dating, fluctuate greatly up to 45,000 years, the limit of the study.

Evidently Dr. David Richards doesn't have the problem with radiocarbon dating that Scott Creighton is claiming since he was part of the group responsible for the article "INTCAL09 AND MARINE09 RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION CURVES, 0–50,000 YEARS CAL BP". The abstract of which reads:

The IntCal04 and Marine04 radiocarbon calibration curves have been updated from 12 cal kBP (cal kBP is

here defined as thousands of calibrated years before AD 1950), and extended to 50 cal kBP, utilizing newly available data sets

that meet the IntCal Working Group criteria for pristine corals and other carbonates and for quantification of uncertainty in

both the 14C and calendar timescales as established in 2002. No change was made to the curves from 0–12 cal kBP. The curves

were constructed using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) implementation of the random walk model used for IntCal04

and Marine04. The new curves were ratified at the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference in June 2009 and are available

in the Supplemental Material at www.radiocarbon.org.

cormac

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.