Analyse This

[kmt_sesh]

Something else to consider, now that it occurred to me.

If all of the Giza pyramids, big and small, were not meant as tombs but as a terrestrial representation of Orion, why the internal structures? Why not just make the pyramids completely solid form the inside out? To be sure, equipping all of these pyramids with chambers and passages significantly added to the labor and expense of building the things, so they seem quite superfluous in the Giza=Orion model.

Let's recap two things that must be remembered and observed in all such arguments: based on extensive carbon dating we know the three colossal Giza pyramids were built around 2500 BCE, and due to the graffiti in the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid we know that pyramid was built for Khufu. Therefore, we know beyond argument when these pyramids were built and who started Giza as a royal necropolis. It seems Scott is now accepting that the Egyptians built the pyramids, in contrast to his past arguments, so that at least is progress, but I think a great many other things are being ignored along the way.

[Scott Creighton]

Who says I didn't? I just didn't mention that that was the closest to your claimed 47 degree angle. Superimposing a picture of Orion's Belt over the Giza pyramids and doubling the length from G1 to G2 (as you did) and then from that end to where Mintaka rests gives an angle of better than 83 degrees. Which is close to twice your claim. And again, none of this requires the AE to understand precession as they'd only need to understand angles and proportions.

cormac

Cormac,

You simply cannot work with such images from Google Earth for the reasons cited below. You must work with a measured ground plan of the Giza plateau that shows the correct centres relative to each other without any distortion or skewing. The hi-res Giza Plateau Mapping Project map of Giza is presently the best available public domain drawing available, hence why I use it in my presentation. I am at a complete loss as to what it is you are attempting to demonstrate in your previous post. 83 degrees! What on God's good earth are you talking about?

GE satellite snapshots at an oblique angle which distorts the image thus failing to give a true account of on-the-ground measurements, vis-a-vis:

Google Earth Inaccuracies

Google Earth is a complex application representing two and three dimensional data, vector data, integer and real numbers, and a variety of geometric projections. The imagery come from a variety of sources and the processing of the imagery is done both by machine and humans. In addition, there are many terabytes of information from a variety of sources involving many people. As a result, there are bound to be inaccuracies in the data. Google is continuously taking input and improving the existing data.

The images are not all taken at the same time, but are generally current to within three years. Image sets are sometimes not correctly stitched together. Updates to the photographic database can occasionally be noticed when drastic changes take place in the appearance of the landscape, like for example Google Earth's incomplete updates of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, or when placemarks appear to shift unexpectedly across the Earth's surface. Though the placemarks have not in fact moved, the imagery is composed and stitched differently. Such an update to London's photography in early 2006 created shifts of 15-20 metres in many areas, noticeable because the resolution is so high.

Errors sometimes occur due to the technology used to measure the height of terrain; for example, tall buildings in Adelaide cause one part of the city to be rendered as a small mountain, when it is in fact flat. The height of the Eiffel Tower creates a similar effect in the rendering of Paris.

The "Measure" function shows that the length of equator is about 40,030.24 km, giving an error of −0.112% compared with the actual value of 40,075.02 km Earth; for the meridional circumference, it shows a length of about 39,963.13 km, also giving an error of −0.112% compared with the actual value of 40,007.86 km.

The Arctic polar ice caps are completely absent from the current version of Google Earth. Information explaining this notable absence is difficult to find if any has been supplied at all. Google Earth presently renders no ice packs in the arctic circle, and the geographic North Pole is found hovering over the Arctic Ocean. There is very low resolution coverage of the Antarctic continent. The tiling system produces bizarre artifacts near the poles as the tiles become 'infinitely' small and rounding errors accumulate.

The atmosphere in Google Earth is greatly exaggerated. Comparisons with actual photographs show the Google Earth atmosphere to be 20 times thicker. [This has the effect of slightly distorting the images through an atmospheric lens effect].

Where no 3 arc second digital elevation data was available, the three dimensional images covering some areas of high relief are not at all accurate, but most mountain areas are now well mapped. The underlying digital elevation model has been placed 3 arc seconds too far north and up to 3 arc seconds too far west. This means that some steep mountain ridges incorrectly appear to have shadows extending over onto their south facing sides. Some high resolution images have also been misplaced, an example is the image covering Annapurna, which is misplaced by about 12 arc seconds.

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Resolution_and_accuracy

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Something else to consider, now that it occurred to me.

If all of the Giza pyramids, big and small, were not meant as tombs but as a terrestrial representation of Orion, why the internal structures? Why not just make the pyramids completely solid form the inside out? To be sure, equipping all of these pyramids with chambers and passages significantly added to the labor and expense of building the things, so they seem quite superfluous in the Giza=Orion model.

Let's recap two things that must be remembered and observed in all such arguments: based on extensive carbon dating we know the three colossal Giza pyramids were built around 2500 BCE, and due to the graffiti in the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid we know that pyramid was built for Khufu. Therefore, we know beyond argument when these pyramids were built and who started Giza as a royal necropolis. It seems Scott is now accepting that the Egyptians built the pyramids, in contrast to his past arguments, so that at least is progress, but I think a great many other things are being ignored along the way.

kmt_sesh,

I'd be more than happy to answer your questions. Alas, however, I see that this will simply draw me into areas I am not prepared to go at this point and, heaven forbid, I don't want the excitables on this board to get the idea that I am simply here to plug a book! The topic is the Giza-Orion Blueprint. Let's stick to that for the moment.

Until next time....

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[Sensible Logic]

As Bauval explains, Orion's Belt has very little 'proper motion'. This means that the spatial distances and angles between each of its three stars will remain pretty much the same now as they were thousands of years in the past.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

I guess you missed my point. In the movie you linked to in the OP, they overlay the stars of Orion you see today with the pyramids at Giza. If you had looked at the images in the post I linked to, you would have seen that the constellation of Orion has been rotating. The three stars may be the same distance apart and the same angle to each other, but their compass directions have been changing. That being the case, if the Egyptians had built the pyramids to match the stars, then you would not be able to overlay the constellation as it appears today on the pyramids and have them match.

[hortie]

Who says I didn't? I just didn't mention that that was the closest to your claimed 47 degree angle. Superimposing a picture of Orion's Belt over the Giza pyramids and doubling the length from G1 to G2 (as you did) and then from that end to where Mintaka rests gives an angle of better than 83 degrees. Which is close to twice your claim. And again, none of this requires the AE to understand precession as they'd only need to understand angles and proportions.

cormac

I believe this is conclusive evidence that at least the pyramids have a connection to Orion. Now what else does that mean is yet to be seen. On a topogrraphical shot like here there is little distortion, the two overlays show proof the link between the two.

[Scott Creighton]

I guess you missed my point. In the movie you linked to in the OP, they overlay the stars of Orion you see today with the pyramids at Giza. If you had looked at the images in the post I linked to, you would have seen that the constellation of Orion has been rotating. The three stars may be the same distance apart and the same angle to each other, but their compass directions have been changing. That being the case, if the Egyptians had built the pyramids to match the stars, then you would not be able to overlay the constellation as it appears today on the pyramids and have them match.

Bauval's OCT may require that the Belt stars have a particular compass alignment - my work does not. This is just one of the areas in which I happen to disagree with Bauval who believes a correlation between sky and ground was made when the Belt stars were due south on the meridian. I find this unlikely because the AEs - at least in the Old Kingdom - were horizon watchers. They would not have created an alignment with the Belt stars at the meridian, imo, ergo the alignment to 11,500 BCE claimed by Bauval is, imo, likely to be coincidence. In my work it does not really matter how the stars are rotated in the sky because all you require is an accurate recording of the asterism to work with in the manner I demonstrate in the OP. This is to say that you can take a photograph of the Belt stars at any rotation in the night sky and from that photo you can then create three bases whose shapes and relative proportions will match the shapes and relative proportions of the Gizamids to a high degree of accuracy. You can then simply rotate your drawing so that your bases are aligned to the cardinal directions. Obviously you would place G3 furthest south and G1 furthest north since mintaka is highest UP in the sky whilst Al Nitak is the lowest star. Keep in mind here the AE world view that south=UP (opposite to our modern convention that has north=up).

So, in short, it is completely irrelevant to my research the rotation of the Belt stars since the three bases can be produced from those three stars no matter how they are rotated and presented in a photo, on a sheet of paper or on a computer screen.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Edited November 4, 2011 by Scott Creighton

[hortie]

Bauval's OCT may require that the Belt stars have a particular compass alignment - my work does not. This is just one of the areas in which I happen to disagree with Bauval who believes a correlation between sky and ground was made when the Belt stars were due south on the meridian. I find this unlikely because the AEs - at least in the Old Kingdom - were horizon watchers. They would not have created an alignment with the Belt stars at the meridian, imo, ergo the alignment to 11,500 BCE claimed by Bauval is, imo, likely to be coincidence. In my work it does not really matter how the stars are rotated in the sky because all you require is an accurate recording of the asterism to work with in the manner I demonstrate in the OP. This is to say that you can take a photograph of the Belt stars at any rotation in the night sky and from that photo you can then create three bases whose shapes and relative proportions will match the shapes and relative proportions of the Gizamids to a high degree of accuracy. You can then simply rotate your drawing so that your bases are aligned to the cardinal directions. Obviously you would place G3 furthest south and G1 furthest north since mintaka is highest UP in the sky whilst Al Nitak is the lowest star. Keep in mind here the AE world view that south=UP (opposite to our modern convention that has north=up).

So, in short, it is completely irrelevant to my research the rotation of the Belt stars since the three bases can be produced from those three stars no matter how they are rotated and presented in a photo, on a sheet of paper or on a computer screen.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Agreed, the rotation would not matter the shape of the stars would remain the same

[Sensible Logic]

Agreed, the rotation would not matter the shape of the stars would remain the same

Then to be honest any three similarly arranged stars could have been used.

[hortie]

Then to be honest any three similarly arranged stars could have been used.

Yup, but these do seem to fit extremely well.

[Scott Creighton]

Then to be honest any three similarly arranged stars could have been used.

SC: INDEED! Thank you! The POINT is not so much what three stars were used BUT that three (perhaps unknown) stars WERE USED! The point is that this shows that Giza CAN be shown to conform to a preconceived, unified PLAN based on three stars.

For good reason, however, I submit that the three stars that WERE used were those associated with the most prominent god in ancient Egypt - Osiris, a god associated with Sah (Orion). But we can be absolutely certain that it is the Belt Stars since the other pyramids at Giza - the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids' - demonstrate to us the precessional maximum and minimum culminations of the chosen star triad i.e. Orion's Belt. No other triad of stars in the night sky precesses/culminates in the manner depicted for us in the 'Queens Pyramids' at Giza. It can ONLY be Orion's Belt.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

PS - Don't you also think it quite an incredible coincidence of coincidences that the very asterism that produces the very bases we have at Giza is mimicked by the structures themselves i.e. that their very layout is extremely close to the asterism of three stars (assuming we do not know which stars they are) that can produce three such bases? The odds of such an occurrence happening randomly are astronomically high.

[hortie]

SC: INDEED! Thank you! The POINT is not so much what three stars were used BUT that three (perhaps unknown) stars WERE USED! The point is that this shows that Giza CAN be shown to conform to a preconceived, unified PLAN based on three stars.

For good reason, however, I submit that the three stars that WERE used were those associated with the most prominent god in ancient Egypt - Osiris, a god associated with Sah (Orion). But we can be absolutely certain that it is the Belt Stars since the other pyramids at Giza - the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids' - demonstrate to us the precessional maximum and minimum culminations of the chosen star triad i.e. Orion's Belt. No other triad of stars in the night sky precesses/culminates in the manner depicted for us in the 'Queens Pyramids' at Giza. It can ONLY be Orion's Belt.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

PS - Don't you also think it quite an incredible coincidence of coincidences that the very asterism that produces the very bases we have at Giza is mimicked by the structures themselves i.e. that their very layout is extremely close to the asterism of three stars (assuming we do not know which stars they are) that can produce three such bases? The odds of such an occurrence happening randomly are astronomically high.

I agree with you, and I like how you think, we don't know and probably will never know why they are built the way they are and the position they are in. However Orion seems likely and I t would be an incredible coincidence, incredible if they just happened to mimick the set of stars. If I were to create the most prolific and greatest man made structures of all time, why not plan to mimick your favorite stars?

[cormac mac airt]

Cormac,

You simply cannot work with such images from Google Earth for the reasons cited below. You must work with a measured ground plan of the Giza plateau that shows the correct centres relative to each other without any distortion or skewing. The hi-res Giza Plateau Mapping Project map of Giza is presently the best available public domain drawing available, hence why I use it in my presentation. I am at a complete loss as to what it is you are attempting to demonstrate in your previous post. 83 degrees! What on God's good earth are you talking about?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Of course it's skewed. But not significantly enough to make up for the fact that your claim doesn't work. And yes, while I was looking more to the angle of a side (using your double length line), as opposed to your corner angle, neither are very far off their respective marks of 45 or 90 degrees. Regardless, matching your "ratio comparison map" with a layout of Orion's Belt still shows quite a significant difference as seen below.

The shiny points are where the stars are, or should be, aligning on the map. Notice that Mintaka is significantly off, which throws off the entire layout for G3.

cormac

[hortie]

Of course it's skewed. But not significantly enough to make up for the fact that your claim doesn't work. And yes, while I was looking more to the angle of a side (using your double length line), as opposed to your corner angle, neither are very far off their respective marks of 45 or 90 degrees. Regardless, matching your "ratio comparison map" with a layout of Orion's Belt still shows quite a significant difference as seen below.

The shiny points are where the stars are, or should be, aligning on the map. Notice that Mintaka is significantly off, which throws off the entire layout for G3.

cormac

Would obviously destroy this theory however I'm inclined to agree with an aerial photograph rather than drawings to show the distances.

[cormac mac airt]

Would obviously destroy this theory however I'm inclined to agree with an aerial photograph rather than drawings to show the distances.

The drawing is from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, which IS more accurate than the Google Earth picture. But in either case, NEITHER falls where SC claims they should in his presentation. Quite telling, IMO.

cormac

[hortie]

The drawing is from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, which IS more accurate than the Google Earth picture. But in either case, NEITHER falls where SC claims they should in his presentation. Quite telling, IMO.

cormac

I apologize on first look, did not look credible. The google earth one did have an argument though, it was pretty good...

[Scott Creighton]

Of course it's skewed. But not significantly enough to make up for the fact that your claim doesn't work. And yes, while I was looking more to the angle of a side (using your double length line), as opposed to your corner angle, neither are very far off their respective marks of 45 or 90 degrees. Regardless, matching your "ratio comparison map" with a layout of Orion's Belt still shows quite a significant difference as seen below.

The shiny points are where the stars are, or should be, aligning on the map. Notice that Mintaka is significantly off, which throws off the entire layout for G3.

cormac

SC: My theory works just fine as is easily observable in the presentation in the OP. The PROBLEM here is your lack of understanding. You keep bringing in Bauval's OCT into this as demonstrated by your latest images. It was always Bauval's view that it was G3 centre that was in error (as per your diagram). This is NOT what I am saying or ever have said. If you properly follow what I have said in countless posts and diagrams it is G2 centre that is in error. This is to say - and this is VERY IMPORTANT that you understand this because you clearly do not - the FULCRUM is G1 and G3 centres matching Al Nitak/Mintaka and NOT as you have in your diagrams G1 and G2 centres matching the fisrt two stars. G2 is in error from Al Nilam NOT G3-Mintaka.

Now, if you are going to attempt to deconstruct or debunk my work then please at least do me the courtesy of first understanding what I am actually saying and what I am actually presenting. Right now it is abundantly clear that you do not understand what has been presented.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

The PROBLEM here is your lack of understanding.

Nope, the problem here is YOUR presentation. From my previous post, the sniny spot in the upper left is where Mintaka 'should' rest. However, as seen on the map it doesn't. This has nothing to do with Bauval's theory, as your presentation is the one that draws a direct line from G1 to G2. If G2 were in fact wrong, then there should be no direct line between it and G1. Meaning that you shouldn't have made that connection.

cormac

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Scotty could you expand on what brought you to your current thought as I asked in a previous post? Or simply just say its unimportant so I don't wait to long hoping for a reply. Thanks. I know these other fellas are more engaging but my interest is different as I am interested in the psychology if it.

Also I am curious and please don't just focus on thus part as it is just a passing query in retrospect to my previous post.

Khufu was the second son sneferu being the first. Why if this was planned for an astral alignment meant to be something very important I would assume would sneferu place his pyramids elsewhere (to the north if my memory serves me) and then leave it up to the second son to finish this tribute. Why isn't sneferus pyramid next to his father's. If this was such a grandiose tribute it should have been the main focus when sneferu built his first pyramid. Hey sesh can you fact check my statement for errors thanks. Memory is all I have today...

[Scott Creighton]

Nope, the problem here is YOUR presentation. From my previous post, the sniny spot in the upper left is where Mintaka 'should' rest. However, as seen on the map it doesn't. This has nothing to do with Bauval's theory, as your presentation is the one that draws a direct line from G1 to G2. If G2 were in fact wrong, then there should be no direct line between it and G1. Meaning that you shouldn't have made that connection.

cormac

SC: What on earth are you twittering about? THERE IS NO LINE between G1 and G2 centres!!!!!!!!! What more do I have to do to get this through to you?????

Here:

Do you see? The FULCRUM is G1 and G3 (i.e. Al Nitak/Mintaka) - NOT G1 and G2 centres. I am drawing a line from Al Nitak centre to Al Nilam centre (it's there in the images - just look at the YELLOW DOTS. Those are the stars of Orion's Belt). It is G2 centre that is in error from its planned position in the Belt asterism. Draw a line from Al Nitak centre to Al Nilam centre. Double the length of that line and VOILA!!! Goodnight Vienna!!!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Edited November 4, 2011 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

Except that in your presentation the point of Al-Nitak is meaningless, particularly since you've said it's wrong, so therefore serves no useful purpose.

And as can be seen, the end of the line DOESN'T actually come to the corner of G3 as you've presented but actually a little south southeast of that corner. Even if one drew a line from there to the center of G3/Mintaka and doubled it to the other side they STILL wouldn't match the layout of G3. Also to mention that BOTH points, the Northwest as well as the Southeast, are well WITHIN the outer perimeter of G3. So no matter which way one tries to find a match, IT'S STILL WRONG.

Unless you can provide a valid reason why the AE would ignore the point of G2 in favor of G3 AS WELL AS an explanation of why they'd utilize two points WELL WITHIN the perimeter of G3, then there's no reason to believe your presentation bears any validity IMO.

cormac

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Scotty could you expand on what brought you to your current thought as I asked in a previous post? Or simply just say its unimportant so I don't wait to long hoping for a reply. Thanks. I know these other fellas are more engaging but my interest is different as I am interested in the psychology if it.

Also I am curious and please don't just focus on thus part as it is just a passing query in retrospect to my previous post.

Khufu was the second son sneferu being the first. Why if this was planned for an astral alignment meant to be something very important I would assume would sneferu place his pyramids elsewhere (to the north if my memory serves me) and then leave it up to the second son to finish this tribute. Why isn't sneferus pyramid next to his father's. If this was such a grandiose tribute it should have been the main focus when sneferu built his first pyramid. Hey sesh can you fact check my statement for errors thanks. Memory is all I have today...

After consulting with an advisor LOL I am bound to correct where I was in err.

sneferu was khufus father not first son. The point is still valid as the line of thought would still not change why did sneferu not participate. And less of an important error sneferu built to the south not north as I had stated...

SCOTT where are you?

[kmt_sesh]

kmt_sesh,

I'd be more than happy to answer your questions. Alas, however, I see that this will simply draw me into areas I am not prepared to go at this point and, heaven forbid, I don't want the excitables on this board to get the idea that I am simply here to plug a book! The topic is the Giza-Orion Blueprint. Let's stick to that for the moment.

Until next time....

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

I'm sorry to hear that. As I see it, and as in fact reality has it, a theory has to be defended on all fronts. What you're trying to do is in fact argue a rather minor point: that is, the Giza pyramids represent Orion. Yes, I know, to you it's probably incredibly important, but in reality, the most important question is why? If you cannot fully answer and defend that question, as it pertains to the culture which produced the monuments in that specific part of the timeline, then it comes across to me as though you're deliberately trying to avoid the issue because you're not equipped to deal with it. I'm not saying that's how it absolutely is, I'm merely saying that's how it seems to me. I am not a professional historian, mind you, but I am well familiar with the presentation of theories and the critical protocols of peer-review. You seem quite disinterested in presenting a whole theory.

In Post 60 you stated:

For good reason, however, I submit that the three stars that WERE used were those associated with the most prominent god in ancient Egypt - Osiris, a god associated with Sah (Orion)

Now, yes, I know you and I have bumped heads about Osiris before. Yet while you seem to ignore the archaeological and cultural aspects of my own posts, you continue to make such comments about archaeological and cultural aspects. Osiris was indeed associated with Sah, but we have no extant evidence that this was the case in Dynasty 4. The association dates to later periods. In the above comment, by implication you're of course arguing that Osiris was "the most prominent god" in the time of Khufu, in Dynasty 4. But in all honesty, you really don't find it even a little odd that not one inscription or even reference to Osiris exists anywhere in the Dynasty 4 monuments of Giza? Not just in Khufu's temples and causeway, mind you, but in any of the adjacent tombs of his family members, officials, and courtiers? I should think you would have to see the hole in your Osiris argument. Now, what is attested beyond dispute is that the most important state deity in the time of Khufu was the god Horus.

You will notice that I rarely join in the specifics of astronomy, such as you and cormac have debated. I do not hide the fact that I am not well versed in astronomy or archaeoastronomy. It has never interested me. I have no doubt that you've forgotten more about astronomy than I will or might ever learn. This is why I usually steer clear of it. I admit I should feel obligated to learn more, and I know of very good sources and books on the subject of archaeoastronomy, but I have yet to get around to it. But what I focus on is the full merit of a theory, and this must include the evidence left to us by the Egyptians themselves. If you wish to ignore this aspect of my posts I might be best off just leaving this discussion, but I am not inclined to do so just yet.

[kmt_sesh]

After consulting with an advisor LOL I am bound to correct where I was in err.

sneferu was khufus father not first son. The point is still valid as the line of thought would still not change why did sneferu not participate. And less of an important error sneferu built to the south not north as I had stated...

SCOTT where are you?

Your point is still valid and requires answering, Aus. I asked something similar about Sneferu back in Post 50 and have not received an answer, either. Scott is intelligent. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But I hope he understands that these sorts of questions must be answered. We're just enthusiasts and amateur historians here (for the most part) but how will Scott respond to an actual Egyptologist or any other professional scholar of the Near East? Such a person just might challenge Scott one day.

The alternative is to become like Sitchin or von Däniken or Bauval or Schoch or any of the others. All but entirely ignored by scholars, that is. The harsh truth is, none of these folks have had any effect on the world of academia. Now, if your target audience as a writer is the same audience that gobbles up Ancient Aliens, then your sights don't have to be set high. But if you truly want to contribute to our knowledge base of any ancient society, you must be prepared to answer all questions on all aspects of your argument. I think it might be a good idea for folks like Scott to see UM and other such forums as a testing ground, to see how their arguments are received by average people. I can think of some posters with "new ideas" who've given it a shot and promptly fled, in the face of scrutiny. Scott has certainly lasted longer than most, I think.

Another thing to consider, while I'm in the mood to ramble. Scott is arguing that the three Giza pyramids represent a unified plan. They were built specifically with Orion in mind. Why, then, after Khufu did the next king, Djedefre, move to Abu Rawash to build his pyramid? And why did the next king, Seth?ka, go to Zawiyet el-Aryan to build his pyramid? Only with the accession of Khafre did pyramid building return to Giza. This doesn't sound terribly unified to me. And it's another serious question that must be addressed.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Your point is still valid and requires answering, Aus. I asked something similar about Sneferu back in Post 50 and have not received an answer, either. Scott is intelligent. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But I hope he understands that these sorts of questions must be answered. We're just enthusiasts and amateur historians here (for the most part) but how will Scott respond to an actual Egyptologist or any other professional scholar of the Near East? Such a person just might challenge Scott one day.

The alternative is to become like Sitchin or von Däniken or Bauval or Schoch or any of the others. All but entirely ignored by scholars, that is. The harsh truth is, none of these folks have had any effect on the world of academia. Now, if your target audience as a writer is the same audience that gobbles up Ancient Aliens, then your sights don't have to be set high. But if you truly want to contribute to our knowledge base of any ancient society, you must be prepared to answer all questions on all aspects of your argument. I think it might be a good idea for folks like Scott to see UM and other such forums as a testing ground, to see how their arguments are received by average people. I can think of some posters with "new ideas" who've given it a shot and promptly fled, in the face of scrutiny. Scott has certainly lasted longer than most, I think.

Another thing to consider, while I'm in the mood to ramble. Scott is arguing that the three Giza pyramids represent a unified plan. They were built specifically with Orion in mind. Why, then, after Khufu did the next king, Djedefre, move to Abu Rawash to build his pyramid? And why did the next king, Seth?ka, go to Zawiyet el-Aryan to build his pyramid? Only with the accession of Khafre did pyramid building return to Giza. This doesn't sound terribly unified to me. And it's another serious question that must be addressed.

Good point! I hadn't even got that far as the. Third pyramid. LOL I was so confused as to why sneferu opted out and the unified plan falling apart at stage two that stage three didn't even occur to me yet.... I do hope he is able to address this. As I do not think he realizes in a sense we really actually helping him instead of whatever he thinks of us. I'm just phone Guy anyways I don't think he thinks too highly of my questions.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[kmt_sesh]

Good point! I hadn't even got that far as the. Third pyramid. LOL I was so confused as to why sneferu opted out and the unified plan falling apart at stage two that stage three didn't even occur to me yet.... I do hope he is able to address this. As I do not think he realizes in a sense we really actually helping him instead of whatever he thinks of us. I'm just phone Guy anyways I don't think he thinks too highly of my questions.

Bah! You know we all love you, phone guy.