Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[cormac mac airt]

SC: There is. The topography clearly shows that were G2 to have remained centered on Al Nilam then its southern and western flanks would have been built up on the mound in that location of the plateau. The designers compromised G2's Orion position to ensure the pyramid fully enveloped the mound thus creating a much more stable pyramid. If you have a problem with the topographic survey drawings that demonstrate this, take it up with Dr Lehner and GPMP team. Good luck with that.

SC: No. YOU said that.

SC: Not at all. This is what I have ALWAYS maintained if you would only read properly what I write.

SC: And here we have further evidence of you either not understanding what is being said to you or that you are intent in deliberately fabricating and spreading misinformation. The relative sizes of the Giza three are determined by the Orion Belt ASTERISM vis-a-vis the Giza-Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint. Their relative size has NOTHING to do with "the size of the Belt stars" i.e. their apparent magnitudes. You are confusing my theory with that of Robert Bauval.

SC

The topography clearly shows that they were interesting in utilizing the full mound on which it was built. That's ALL the topography shows.

No. YOU said that.

I said it was doable. You haven't shown that it wasn't.

You are confusing my theory with that of Robert Bauval.

No, I'm seeing that your theory is separated from reality. If the Egyptians were going to build the pyramids to match Orion's Belt, then they would have built it at the required positions and where possible the relative sizes as seen in the night sky, if this was part of a Unified Plan. Since we know that Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure's reign was interrupted by at least one king, Djedefre - whose pyramid complex is at Abu Rawash, then we know it wasn't a Unified Plan from the start. Also, if the Egyptians were really intent with maintaining the layout of Orion's Belt they could have just as easily changed the position of G3 to make it match exactly. They didn't do this either, which also suggests it wasn't part of a Unified Plan.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Something else of which you've not considered, at least in this thread. If the Egyptians wanted the Gizamids to represent Orion's Belt then they could have maintained the peak-point of Al Nilam and utilized the limestone from the southern/western side of the mound in building the structure. Which would have required a lot less effort in transporting it from there than from the quarries much further away. The other possibility is that you think the Egyptians were complete idiots, incapable of thinking that far ahead.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

SC: And here we have further evidence of you either not understanding what is being said to you or that you are intent in deliberately fabricating and spreading misinformation. The relative sizes of the Giza three are determined by the Orion Belt ASTERISM vis-a-vis the Giza-Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint. Their relative size has NOTHING to do with "the size of the Belt stars" i.e. their apparent magnitudes. You are confusing my theory with that of Robert Bauval.

CMA: The topography clearly shows that they were interesting in utilizing the full mound on which it was built. That's ALL the topography shows.

SC: That is merely the ASSUMPTION made by Consensus Egyptology. Have they ever proven that assumption? An emphatic NO.

SC: No. YOU said that.

CMA: I said it was doable. You haven't shown that it wasn't.

SC: There are many things that the AEs COULD also have done. But I am not in the least bit interested in showing what the AEs could also have done. I am interested only in showing how the AEs could have designed their plan and demonstrating why G2 had to be moved slightly offplan and why it was moved to the location we find it today. If you have other theories of what COULD have been done that’s up to you to present them with supporting evidence.

SC: You are confusing my theory with that of Robert Bauval.

CMA: No, I'm seeing that your theory is separated from reality.

SC: Tsk, tsk. Remember what I told you about disparaging remarks—a good indicator that you have lost the argument. Time for a reality check. THIS IS THE REALITY:

(Red lines in two diagrams above are yours. Rest are mine).

The above is what we find on the Giza plateau. If you prefer to view it as satellite images (which, for a number of valid reasons, I do not actually recommend but I know your penchant for them) then you get something like this:

Now, if you think the above outcome of the inter-quarter lines from G1 thru G3 is somehow the result of some remarkable coincidence then it is you that needs to reconsider what is real and what isn’t. It is simply inconceivable that the above inter-quarter lines of G1 thru G3 (without G2) can have occurred by random chance. This has to have been planned for there is simply no other reasonable way such could occur.

But why does G2’s inter-quarter points not slot into these lines? Well, if G2 is moved to the position of Al Nilam (with G1 and G3 as fulcrum), G2’s inter-quarter points fit very well indeed into the G1-G3 inter-quarter lines—further proof (if such was even needed) that Giza is the result of a unified plan. See below:

And we know why G2 had to be moved slightly offplan—the topology of the plateau meant that two of G2’s flanks would have been some way atop the rocky mound in that area of the plateau. The best solution was to move G2 slightly to fully envelop the mound.

CMA: If the Egyptians were going to build the pyramids to match Orion's Belt, then they would have built it at the required positions and where possible the relative sizes as seen in the night sky, if this was part of a Unified Plan.

SC: You are simply not listening. I have shown you how the relative sizes of the three Gizamids may have been conceived (the Giza-Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint) using the Belt asterism and very simple, systematic geometry. And yet you still twitter on about the “relative sizes” of the Belt stars in the night sky (as per Bauval). How many times do I have to tell you that the apparent magnitudes of the Belt stars as per my theory have NOTHING to do with the design of the relative sizes of the Gizamids? Why are you not getting this? The BELT ASTERISM (i.e. the layout of the Belt stars) defined the relative sizes of the Gizamids. Stop going on about the size of the stars—THAT is Bauval’s theory which I do not agree with.

CMA: Since we know that Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure's reign was interrupted by at least one king, Djedefre - whose pyramid complex is at Abu Rawash, then we know it wasn't a Unified Plan from the start.

SC: So what. Clearly you are not fully conversant with my work. I suggest you do so before continuing this particular line of argument. You can start here.

CMA: Also, if the Egyptians were really intent with maintaining the layout of Orion's Belt they could have just as easily changed the position of G3 to make it match exactly. They didn't do this either, which also suggests it wasn't part of a Unified Plan.

SC: The unified plan is there for anyone to see. It is observable on the ground, in the monuments today, right here, right now. See the above diagrams. If you think those inter-quarter lines are not the signature of a unified plan then you are simply kidding yourself. As stated already, it is inconceivable that such an outcome can occur by random chance. When will you acknowledge that?

CMA: Something else of which you've not considered, at least in this thread. If the Egyptians wanted the Gizamids to represent Orion's Belt then they could have maintained the peak-point of Al Nilam and utilized the limestone from the southern/western side of the mound in building the structure. Which would have required a lot less effort in transporting it from there than from the quarries much further away. The other possibility is that you think the Egyptians were complete idiots, incapable of thinking that far ahead.

SC: You can quit with the attempts at placing words in my mouth. The AEs did what they did. The above diagrams clearly demonstrate the unified plan. Accept it.

SC

Edited November 5, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

Since you don't like satellite photo's:

You miss the SE corner of G1 as well as the SE corner of G2. And don't tell me "well it hits within the pyramid court" as that's irrelevant. Your lines either touch G1 and G2 or they don't. If they don't then they're meaningless.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Since you don't like satellite photo's:

You miss the SE corner of G1 as well as the SE corner of G2. And don't tell me "well it hits within the pyramid court" as that's irrelevant. Your lines either touch G1 and G2 or they don't. If they don't then they're meaningless.

cormac

SC: Check closely the SE corner of G1 on the survey drawing and you will see that the corner is rounded not square. I suspect this is more to do with the cartographer's pen than the AE's construction since I am fairly certain the AEs intended square corners and not rounded corners. So, on that basis, when we square G1 SE corner (as was obviously intended) you will find something like this:

(Red line mine all others yours).

I also think you have Al Nilam centre a tiny fraction too far northwest. But no matter--the result has G1 SE corner and G2 SE corner almost perfect to the Lehner-Goedicke Line. The line thru G1a is slightly off but good enough to establish the intent and, as Lehner has stated, consistent with the capabilities of the AEs of the period over a kilometer of plateau, to wit:

"A great SW-NE diagonal cuts the diagonal of Men-kau-re's first queen's pyramid, touches the SE corner of his pyramid, cuts the diagonal of his Mortuary Temple, passes the SE corner of the Khafre Pyramid court, cuts the diagonal of the fore-temple of Khafre's Mortuary Temple, touches the SE corner of Khufu's Pyramid, very nearly cuts the diagonal of his first queen's pyramid and ends in a large block of masonry built into the escarpment.“

"These alignments are out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau." - Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106

SC

[cormac mac airt]

SC: Check closely the SE corner of G1 on the survey drawing and you will see that the corner is rounded not square.

That argument doesn't wash, since the same thing happens at the opposite corner, northwest.

The second picture in your last post has two problems. One; your angle in the southeast corner, extended out to the southwest corner starts in the middle of the line and ends just outside the outer edge of the southwest corner. I believe you had a complaint about line thicknesses earlier. Two; as can be see in this picture, you did not take your line to the northeast corner of the northernmost queen's pyramid. That your line doesn't touch said corner makes your claim of being "slightly off" look rather foolish and about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". And as you've admitted that the red lines are yours, you've effectively admitted to fabricating the evidence. Lastly, your third picture shows that just like my line, your red line does not touch G2. All in all, thanks for confirming what I said earlier.

cormac

Edited November 6, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Scott Creighton]

That argument doesn't wash, since the same thing happens at the opposite corner, northwest.

The second picture in your last post has two problems. One; your angle in the southeast corner, extended out to the southwest corner starts in the middle of the line and ends just outside the outer edge of the southwest corner. I believe you had a complaint about line thicknesses earlier. Two; as can be see in this picture, you did not take your line to the northeast corner of the northernmost queen's pyramid. That your line doesn't touch said corner makes your claim of being "slightly off" look rather foolish and about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". And as you've admitted that the red lines are yours, you've effectively admitted to fabricating the evidence. Lastly, your third picture shows that just like my line, your red line does not touch G2. All in all, thanks for confirming what I said earlier.

cormac

SC: Wash your mouth out with soap, dear boy. I have told you before -- I simply will not entertain pixel perfectionists. It's close enough for Lehner and Goedicke to observe the intent of the designers and builders and that is good enough for me (and I suspect many others who aren't blinkered by the absolute need to debunk this at all costs--for you know and are completely afraid of the implications this discovery has for Consensus Egyptology). That is why you are arguing so strenuously, albeit ineffectively, against this. But you are on a hiding to nil because the evidence the builders left behind is there at Giza for all to see. And you cannot do a thing about that (except make absurd pleas to pixel perfectionism). Builders didn't do a good enough job for you? Tough. Their intent is absolutely clear.

SC

Edited November 6, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

I simply will not entertain pixel perfectionists.

Who cares?

Builders didn't do a good enough job for you?

The builders have done a fine job. You, on the other hand, have shown that you can't even match their level of accuracy while making excuses for it. Tsk, tsk.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Who cares?

The builders have done a fine job. You, on the other hand, have shown that you can't even match their level of accuracy while making excuses for it. Tsk, tsk.

cormac

"A great SW-NE diagonal cuts the diagonal of Men-kau-re's first queen's pyramid, touches the SE corner of his pyramid, cuts the diagonal of his Mortuary Temple, passes the SE corner of the Khafre Pyramid court, cuts the diagonal of the fore-temple of Khafre's Mortuary Temple, touches the SE corner of Khufu's Pyramid, very nearly cuts the diagonal of his first queen's pyramid and ends in a large block of masonry built into the escarpment.“

"These alignments are out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau." - Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106

SC: I concur with Dr Lehner.

SC

Edited November 6, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[lakeview rud]

Has there been any investigation of the "large block of masonry built into the esacarpment" (quoting Lehner)?

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I concur with Dr Lehner.

SC

Just so long as you concur that Dr. Lehner doesn't agree with your premise.

[Scott Creighton]

Just so long as you concur that Dr. Lehner doesn't agree with your premise.

SC: Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

SC

Edited November 6, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Has there been any investigation of the "large block of masonry built into the esacarpment" (quoting Lehner)?

Hi,

It is something I have always been meaning to investigate. It will be near the top of my list upon my next research trip to Giza hopefully March or October next year.

Regards,

SC

[lakeview rud]

SC, if you do get to take a look at that block of masonry I hope you find something of interest. It's too far NW of the (missing) causeway to be part of that. Who knows it may be a fondation stone for an earlier causeway; heck it could be almost anything but it would not make sense to just 'plunk' a chunk of masonry on the escarpment, especially if it was fitted in.

Also, regarding the alignment debate, has anyone attempted to 'regress' the star positions to 4500 years ago? If those 3 stars are not relatively close together they may have had somewhat different positions back then. That may help (or hurt) your argument.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

SC

This post is not for debating the specific points of your own beliefs but is in reply to your comment about Mark Lehner. No, as far as I know, Lehner has never commented on your ideas. I rather doubt he ever will. That's beside the point. But I am well familiar with Lehner's work and have read many of his papers, so I based my earlier comment on my knowledge of Lehner's conclusions and position as an Egyptologist. That's what matters.

To that end, let's take a look at several things Lehner has written.

In The Complete Pyramids he is on record as dismissing the Orion alignment, albeit in reference to Bauval's work. I understand your ideas differ from Bauval's but the end result is the same: both of you argue in favor of a Giza alignment with Orion, while Lehner does not (1997: 106):

But when a map the map of Orion is positioned over that of Giza and nearby pyramids, it is clear that there are stars in Orion for which there are no matching pyramids, and pyramids for which there are no stars in Orion, or any other constellation.

Whether or not you disagree with this position of Lehner's, it's clear he does not believe in a stellar alignment for the Giza pyramids. In other words, Lehner disagrees with you.

Now, what of a unified plan for the entirety of the Giza pyramids? Plumbing through only a handful of Lehner's considerable body of professional literature, it becomes immediately clear that he does not see Giza as the sort of unified plan for which you argue. For example, in his paper "The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project," Lehner writes (1985: 109):

Within four generations, from the reigns of Sneferu to Menkaure, nine million cubic meters of stone were quarried, transported, and constructed into the largest of the Old Kingdom pyramids.

There is also his summation (ibid 110):

At Giza, the identification of these principal features also clarifies the sequence of quarrying and construction for the separate pyramid complexes of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure, and their ancillary cemeteries.

As well as (ibid 118):

Mastaba tombs comprising the Western Cemetery of the Khufu Pyramid, which were completed (as core mastabas), according to Reisner (1942, 83-4), by year 20 of Khufu. Included are the nucleus cemeteries G 4000, arrayed E-SE of tomb 4000 of Hemiunu…

In these remarks Lehner clearly views Giza as a long process in development, a generational phenomenon stretching back to Sneferu and encompassing a succession of kings in Dynasty 4. This includes those structures which were an integral part of each pyramid complex, such as temples and other tombs. Lehner adheres to the orthodox historical model.

In his paper "Giza: A Contextual Approach to the Pyramids," Lehner writes (1985: 143):

…Goedicke feels the diagonal aims at Heliopolis and the sanctuary of the ben-ben stone. This NE-SW diagonal can also be seen in the general layout at Abusir where the pyramids of Raneferef, Neferirkare, Neuserre and even the mastaba tomb of Ptahshepses all approximately have their SE corners on line (with Neferirkare, like Khafre at Giza, slightly stepped back)…At Saqqara the Pyramids of Teti, Userkaf, Zoser, Unas and Sekhemkhet are arrayed on an approximate NE-SW diagonal

This is directly relevant to the quote you pulled from Lehner and shows it in its original context. Lehner cites Goedicke's theory that the pyramids of Giza were meant to align to Heliopolis. Is this theory iron-clad? No, it isn't, but it has nothing to do with Orion, nor does Lehner suggest it might. Lehner does not agree with that belief.

In the same paper Lehner writes (ibid 151):

When it came time to build Khafre's Pyramid, the alignments with Khufu's Pyramid may have been consciously and carefully chosen as the layout lines were surveyed. At the same time, the design of the necropolis, from one complex to the next, was not so much a premediated [sic] pattern laid down from the very beginning of Khufu's reign, as an organic development in which some thematic considerations may have been accommodated to certain geological and topographical constraints.

This is perhaps the most important quote of all, for the purpose of my post. Here Lehner not only stresses the development of the Plateau through Dynasty 4 but outright discounts the idea that the pyramids on the Plateau were a unified plan in the manner you're suggesting.

Feel free to comment on this, if you wish. I'm curious to see how you'll spin it. What strikes me is that in one moment you brush off professional historical research and dismiss those who follow its developments, yet in the next moment you pull quotes from professionals in the field to try to bolster your agenda. It doesn't work well, especially when the respected Egyptologist you're trying to use to support your ideas definitely does not agree with your ideas. His ample research and considerable body of literature make that crystal clear.

[Scott Creighton]

Ah, the cavalry has arrived. I wondered how long it would take

SC: Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

KMS: This post is not for debating the specific points of your own beliefs but is in reply to your comment about Mark Lehner. No, as far as I know, Lehner has never commented on your ideas. I rather doubt he ever will.

SC: Your snooty arrogance is surpassed only by your complete inability to grasp the substance of this particular discussion. This is not a discussion about Lehner supporting my views or not or his views on the Giza-Orion concordance. It is about whether the geometry we observe between the structures at Giza was intended by the builders or whether it is simply the result of random chance. Clearly Lehner and Goedicke take the view that the ‘Lehner-Goedicke Line’ they first observed was fully intended and could not be the result of random chance. Any reasonable thinking person not obsessed with pixel-perfection would concur with that.

What Dr Lehner and Dr Goedicke failed to realise, however, were the other two lines—the lines I have termed ‘inter-quarter lines’. These inter-quarter lines are also perfectly definable in the same way that the Lehner-Goedicke line is and is subject to the same implementation constraints as the Lehner-Goedicke line, to wit:

"These alignments are out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau." - Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106

So, when you write:

KMS: “…the geometry stems from your imagination and not from real-world archaeological efforts and research work. Consensus Egyptology is correct, of course. I would be correct only in that I follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology.” (from here).

SC: Well, it was “real-world archaeological efforts and research work” that discovered the Lehner-Goedicke Line so I presume that given you “…follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology” you accept the veracity of this line i.e. that Drs Lehner and Geodicke do not consider it to be the result of some random fluke? So, given the veracity of the Lehner-Goedicke Line, do you also accept that the inter-quarter lines I have discovered are as geometrically valid as those of Lehner and Goedicke i.e. they are not some random fluke? Or is it your view that “…geometry [that] stems from your imagination…” is only valid when discovered by Consensus Egyptologists and not when discovered by anyone outside of Consensus Egyptology?

SC

[Harsh86_Patel]

Ah, the cavalry has arrived. I wondered how long it would take

SC: Your snooty arrogance is surpassed only by your complete inability to grasp the substance of this particular discussion. This is not a discussion about Lehner supporting my views or not or his views on the Giza-Orion concordance. It is about whether the geometry we observe between the structures at Giza was intended by the builders or whether it is simply the result of random chance. Clearly Lehner and Goedicke take the view that the ‘Lehner-Goedicke Line’ they first observed was fully intended and could not be the result of random chance. Any reasonable thinking person not obsessed with pixel-perfection would concur with that.

What Dr Lehner and Dr Goedicke failed to realise, however, were the other two lines—the lines I have termed ‘inter-quarter lines’. These inter-quarter lines are also perfectly definable in the same way that the Lehner-Goedicke line is and is subject to the same implementation constraints as the Lehner-Goedicke line, to wit:

So, when you write:

SC: Well, it was “real-world archaeological efforts and research work” that discovered the Lehner-Goedicke Line so I presume that given you “…follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology” you accept the veracity of this line i.e. that Drs Lehner and Geodicke do not consider it to be the result of some random fluke? So, given the veracity of the Lehner-Goedicke Line, do you also accept that the inter-quarter lines I have discovered are as geometrically valid as those of Lehner and Goedicke i.e. they are not some random fluke? Or is it your view that “…geometry [that] stems from your imagination…” is only valid when discovered by Consensus Egyptologists and not when discovered by anyone outside of Consensus Egyptology?

SC

The way egyptologists including the air bag Zahi Hawass talk about things it definitely seems like egyptology is a private club.

[cormac mac airt]

SC: Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

Then:

This is not a discussion about Lehner supporting my views or not or his views on the Giza-Orion concordance.

Since it was you who tried to imply that Lehner "might" agree with you, only to be confronted by Lehner's own words, which do not support your idea of a unified plan predating the construction of the Gizamids, kmt_sesh's statement isn't presumptive as you've claimed . It's correct.

...so I presume that given you “…follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology” you accept the veracity of this line i.e. that Drs Lehner and Geodicke do not consider it to be the result of some random fluke?

They don't consider it to be pre-planned and prior to the construction of the Gizamids, nor laid out to match Orion's Belt either and that's the point. All the Giza layout has to do, and apparently Lehner would agree, is be extended to the point where it currently resides prior to the completion of G3. This, in no way, can be seen to validate your overall theory.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

SC: Since Dr Lehner has never made comment upon my premise you cannot possibly know if Dr Lehner concurs with it or otherwise. So your statement is presumptive.

CMA: Then:

SC: This is not a discussion about Lehner supporting my views or not or his views on the Giza-Orion concordance.

CMA: Since it was you who tried to imply that Lehner "might" agree with you, only to be confronted by Lehner's own words, which do not support your idea of a unified plan predating the construction of the Gizamids, kmt_sesh's statement isn't presumptive as you've claimed . It's correct.

First of all, I am sure KMT can answer for himself. Secondly, I implied nothing of the sort. You are conflating two quite different issues and I rather suspect you are doing so in order to deliberately create obfuscation.

I fully expect that Dr Lehner will support my view that the inter-quarter lines are NOT the result of some random fluke, just as I concord with his view that his ‘Lehner-Goedicke Line’ also isn’t the result of a random fluke. Of that concordance I have absolutely no doubt as should anyone who is not blinded by the need for pixel-perfection. The inter-quarter lines are just as geometrically significant as the Lehner-Goedicke Line.

As for the other issue, my contention that this geometry results from the Giza-Orion Geo-Stellar Fingeprint—that is a completely separate issue. As far as I am aware, Lehner has seen neither the inter-quarter lines that we can observe at Giza or the Giza-Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint I present. Lehner’s previous comments re Giza-Orion were based solely on Bauval’s OCT premise and have NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I now present. Presented with this new evidence Dr Lehner may still take the view that Orion was not involved (though I rather doubt it) but what he will absolutely NOT do is denounce the geometric significance of the inter-quarter lines as a random fluke. Of that I am quite certain.

SC: ...so I presume that given you “…follow the research and conclusions of Egyptology” you accept the veracity of this line i.e. that Drs Lehner and Geodicke do not consider it to be the result of some random fluke?

CMA: They don't consider it to be pre-planned and prior to the construction of the Gizamids, nor laid out to match Orion's Belt either and that's the point. All the Giza layout has to do, and apparently Lehner would agree, is be extended to the point where it currently resides prior to the completion of G3. This, in no way, can be seen to validate your overall theory.

SC: One step at a time. Let us first agree that the Lehner-Goedicke Line and the inter-quarter lines are not random flukes. When we can agree that then we can move on to the next stage of the discussion, demonstrating why this is the result of pre-planning. If you cannot bring yourself to first accept that the Lehner-Goedicke Line and my inter-quarter lines are aspects of deliberate design and not random flukes, then I am simply wasting my time with you. And I value my time as I am sure you vakue yours.

So, do you accept that it is unlikely that the Lehner-Fgoedicke Line and the inter-quarter lines are the result ofd some random fluke? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice?

SC

Edited November 7, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

So, do you accept that it is unlikely that the Lehner-Fgoedicke Line and the inter-quarter lines are the result ofd some random fluke? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice?

I accept that your inter-quarter lines are fabrications that are not in accord with the actual layout of the Gizamids and are not part of a pre-planned idea pre-dating G1's construction. In this case "close" doesn't count.

cormac

Edited November 7, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Scott Creighton]

I accept that your inter-quarter lines are fabrications that are not in accord with the actual layout of the Gizamids and are not part of a pre-planned idea pre-dating G1's construction. In this case "close" doesn't count.

cormac

SC: So there you have it folks. The blinkered, bitterly biased mindsets of the Egypt-apologists on this Board is exposed for all to see. The geometric legitimacy upon which Dr Lehner and Dr Goedicke present the Lehner-Goedicke Line is no different to what I present and yet the Egypt-apologists here simply cannot bring themselves to give it equivalence that any reasonable-thinking person would (and I am certain Dr Lehner would). Such abstract geometric lines when presented by a badge-carrying Egyptologist are accepted by the Egypt-apologists on this Board but when someone outside the discipline presents corresponding abstract geometric lines, they simply will not accept it.

Bitter, biased and bloody-minded. And that is being very polite.

Live in your blissful ignorance.

SC

Edited November 7, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

SC: So there you have it folks. The blinkered, bitterly biased mindsets of the Egypt-apologists on this Board is exposed for all to see. The geometric legitimacy upon which Dr Lehner and Dr Goedicke present the Lehner-Goedicke Line is no different to what I present and yet the Egypt-apologists here simply cannot give it equivalence. Such abstract geometric lines when presented by a badge-carrying Egyptologist are accepted by the Egypt-apologists on this Board but when someone outside the discipline presents corresponding abstract geometric lines, they simply will not accept it.

Bitter, biased and bloody-minded. And that is being very polite.

Live in your blissful ignorance.

SC

Do you need burped and a bottle too?

cormac

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

To whom it may concern, or anybody, or nobody.

All this about Giza pyramids replicating Orion's belt etc, and lines here and there doing this and that, much as the fabulous and bizarre "Spiral" theory, are much missing the point. What was important in Egyptian religion? was it not the horizons and the passage of Ra across the sky. Was not GP named Akhet Khufu, and perhaps entire Giza complex in those times, though I cannot verify that. The pyramids, the Sphinx and Sphinx temple are lined up on the horizons, not the stars. At summer solstice, viewed from Eastern niche of Sphinx temple, the Sun sets almost exactly midway between Pyramid of Khufu and Khafre. This forms the akhet hieroglyph. Well, don't take my word for this, read this pdf. Marvel at the lines and measurements, gasp in astonishment at the photo of the setting sun forming akhet hieroglyph. Be amazed by the maps drawn by experts!, but search in vain for nonsense....

http://www.gizapyram...hner_afo_32.pdf

On first opening, for those who bothered, this seems to be in German, but it is only the title page, all else is English

Edited November 7, 2012 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Ахет-Хуфу

[cladking]

To whom it may concern, or anybody, or nobody.

All this about Giza pyramids replicating Orion's belt etc, and lines here and there doing this and that, much as the fabulous and bizarre "Spiral" theory, are much missing the point. What was important in Egyptian religion? was it not the horizons and the passage of Ra across the sky. Was not GP named Akhet Khufu, and perhaps entire Giza complex in those times, though I cannot verify that. The pyramids, the Sphinx and Sphinx temple are lined up on the horizons, not the stars. At summer solstice, viewed from Eastern niche of Sphinx temple, the Sun sets almost exactly midway between Pyramid of Khufu and Khafre. This forms the akhet hieroglyph. Well, don't take my word for this, read this pdf. Marvel at the lines and measurements, gasp in astonishment at the photo of the setting sun forming akhet hieroglyph. Be amazed by the maps drawn by experts!, but search in vain for nonsense....

http://www.gizapyram...hner_afo_32.pdf

On first opening, for those who bothered, this seems to be in German, but it is only the title page, all else is English

This is not the symbol. The Egyptians would not have mistaken a triangle for an arch.

Orthodoxy doesn't know the origin or function of any of the symbols, icons, or sceptres.

Any claim to the contrary is simply speculative.