The Pyramid (Re)Genesis Plan

[Scott Creighton]

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

SC: See my reply (post #23) to DieChecker. Ethnocentrically projecting modern conventions onto an ancient culture is hardly permissible.

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

SC: I agree totally. East/West and Up/Down.

As for you presenting evidence that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs, let us have a look. From your first link:

· The Pyramid of Djoser: Probable Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Sekhemkhet: Probable Primary Interment (Southern Tomb).

· The Pyramid of Khaba (Layer Pyramid): No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· Lepsius Pyramid: No Evidence For Primary Interment

· The Pyramid of Meidum: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Seila: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Zawiyet el-Meiyitin: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Sinki: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Naqada: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Kula: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Edfu: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Elephantine: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Bent Pyramid: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Red Pyramid: Probable Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Khufu: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Djedefre: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Khafre: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Baka: No Evidence For Primary Interment.

· The Pyramid of Menkaure: No Evidence For Primary Interment (very interesting secondary burial from Saite Period).

A few “probables” and nothing else. Hardly convincing proof, is it?

From your second link:

Let’s just say that the alleged ‘evolution of mastaba to pyramid’ is NOT proof that the early, giant pyramids were designed and constructed for the express purpose of entombment of an AE king. Matabas (tombs) were – without exception – rectangular structures. Pyramids (Recovery Vaults) were square. The mastabas may well have inspired the design of the pyramid but that does not mean they were to serve the same function.

If the AE wanted to build a massive structure for ANY reason it would - by necessity - have to take the form of a pyramid (or step pyramid in the earliest design) since this would offer the most stable, massive structure that could be built. It is a HUGE assumption that because the Step pyramid appears like a series of mastabas stacked one atop the other and because mastabas were tombs the stacked mastabas must also be a tomb. It is this kind of illogical thinking that has got Egyptology into the mess it is. By this reasoning the much larger but similar looking structure in the image in the bottom-left (image below) MUST also have been built as a mausoleum, right?

Or that the glass, steel and concrete structure to the far right (image below) is simply an evolution from the wooden structure and from the stone structure and that they all served the same function, right?

Simply because something LOOKS like something or looks like it evolved from something it cannot be assumed that the new form actually served the same function as the earlier form. That kind of thinking simply leads to erroneous assumptions.

As for your third link. Herodotus (aka, ‘The Father of Lies’) tells us the pyramids were built as tombs. On what evidence does Herodotus make such a claim? Did Herodotus ever find a mummy in any of the early giant pyramids to substantiate such a claim? No, he did not. And he further tells us that neither Khufu or Khafre were buried in the structures they built.

”And though the two kings [i.e. Khufu and Khafre] built the pyramids to serve as their tombs, in the event neither of them was buried in them; for the multitudes, because of the hardships which they had endured in the building of them and the many cruel and violent acts of these kings, were filled with anger against those who had caused their sufferings and openly threatened to tear their bodies asunder and cast them in despite out of their tombs. Consequently each ruler when dying enjoined upon his kinsmen to bury his body secretly in an unmarked place.”

SC: Let’s think about this. Do you think it sensible logic that Khafre (Rachaf) - knowing what had happened to his father and his pyramid by the “multitudes” of angry peasants - would be so stupid as to inflict the same burden on them and suffer the same fate as his father? Does this tale remotely present any kind of sensible logic to you?

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

SC: I rather think you are seriously over-stating your case. It absolutely shows nothing of the sort. Do you have any REAL evidence to support the tomb theory?

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

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

I've heard this nonsense mooted before. Fact of the matter is, however, such an aligment does not explain the very obvious inter-quarter relationships we find between the structures at Giza and the relationsships of these lines with the so-called queens pyramids. Such an alignment to lunu is just your imagination - a fantasy.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[kmt_sesh]

I've heard this nonsense mooted before. Fact of the matter is, however, such an aligment does not explain the very obvious inter-quarter relationships we find between the structures at Giza and the relationsships of these lines with the so-called queens pyramids. Such an alignment to lunu is just your imagination - a fantasy.

Best wishes,

SC

It has nothing to do with my imagination. I'm not the one who developed the theory. It belongs to Egyptology, and the reasons for the theory meld very well with the belief system of the Old Kingdom.

Meanwhile, your Orion theory does not fit real-world evidence, for a great many reasons posted and demonstrated by numerous UM members in several different discussions in recent years. You can twist and bend and turn the night sky upside-down all you want—it still will not meld with anything relevant to Old Kingdom Egypt.

Your list of pyramids in your post to Sensible Logic doesn't prove anything, you understand? Many fringe posters before you have tried to ignore the pyramids as tombs, and many more after you will continue to do so. All of you will be wrong. You're basing this on the fact that most pyramids have not yielded human remains contemporary to their construction. This is a remarkably stunted argument that no one familiar with ancient Egypt can take seriously. I'm not sure you understand how many mastabas and shaft tombs and escarpment tombs and other tombs did not yield the human remains of their owners.

You said in your opening post that your paper was published in New Dawn Magazine. Why not submit your paper to an academic journal, or even one of the publications for well-read history enthusiasts (e.g., Kmt, Ancient Egypt). Let's see how those journals respond to it. That would be interesting.

[+DieChecker]

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

SC: Look – I don’t really know what it is you are trying to say here but understand this – the ancient Egyptians did not plan the tomb of their successor or their successor’s successor. Or any of their successor’s queens tombs.

That at least I can agree to.

We are constantly being told that the AE king planned his tomb to his own personal taste and nothing else. So now that you have been shown that the Gizamids do exhibit elements of a unified design you are NOW trying to shift the goalposts by claiming that the architect/engineer would have looked and determined the ratios that were pleasing to the eye…” The simple fact of this design is that G3 MUST be designed FIRST in order to determine the ratios of G2 and G1. Is this simple fact registering with you yet?

Using that same logic, we must say that the Empire State building was planned out in the 1700s when they surveyed New York in lower manhattan.

Are you trying to say that it is unlikely that following pharoahs tried to redesign the layout of the Giza complex to fit their own monuments? I thought this was an established pharoanic practice, to use what came before to strengthen your own rule.

Look at Stonehenge. There are three or four distinct construction projects involving different kinds of stones and ditch digging. Each dated and each clearly started after a previous construction had been completed. What your saying is similar to saying that dispite the construction going on over several hundred years, somehow those Druid priests (Or whomever) layed it all out ahead of time. Which is un-defendable as a postion.

Your basic assumption is undefendable. There is no proof it was all layed out, or planned in advance. Your proof consists of geometric lines and sizes of pyramids, which could have been layed out as construction began. There is no need for it to have been in advance.

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

SC: You’re really not getting this, are you? Granted, a queen’s pyramid may be constructed in a relatively short time. But according to mainstream opinion, G3 (and its so-called queens) was built long after G1 and G2 – about 80-100 years. Do you not see the problem here?

Uh.. No. It seems quite clear to me. There is no problem.

Although the plan of the three main Gizamids and the two sets of three so-called queens pyramids was drawn up on Day 1, it would take 80-100 years to implement this plan. So how did the planner know that in 40-60 years in the future there would be a second king at Giza with five queens but none of these queens would want a pyramid beside her husband’s ‘tomb’? How could the designer of this preconceived, unified, homogenous plan have known that in 80-100 years from his time there would exist a third king at Giza who would require three pyramid tombs for his queens? The evidence of preconceived planning is there to see at Giza. So how did the designer know all that would be required in terms of tombs for kings and queens many decades into the future from his own time? Did this designer have a time machine? How did he know how many ‘tombs’ to build into his preconceived plan? The only sensible and rationale explanation for this fore-knowledge is that the designer of this plan was not designing tombs at all – but something else altogether. A Recovery System for the kingdom.

You have still in some way to proove that it was all drawn up on day 1. That is not a given. It is an assumption on your part. One that is un-evidenced other then with speculation about layout geometry, which could have been layed out in a hundred different steps.

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

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

Who's math? Who's probabilities?

It is as easy to back engineer to get G3s dimensions as it is to forward engineer from G3 to get to G1 and G2. One however is very easy to show occured, and the other impossible.

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

SC: Present your proof of that.

Scientific data shows that the pyramids were built one after the other within around 100 years. Dating that has been very well accepted by nearly everyone. The graffiti on various blocks for one clearly gives a timeline that they were all built seperately. Also we know that G2 had it's plan changed after construction began. Why if all were layed out at the same time, would the G2 layout have to be changed, or allowed to be changed?

Are you proposing that all were built at roughly the same time?

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

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

So you're not challenging the idea it was more likely?

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

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

The problem here being you want me to DISPROOVE your theory, which is impossible. It is like Disprooving Bigfoot. There is no evidence to support the idea, yet no real way to disproove it.

This is your pet idea. I'm someone asking questions and pointing out flaws in Your Evidence. I have no idea or theory that I need to proove. The burden of proof and evidence is on YOU.

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

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

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

I see where you are coming from now. You should put such a diagram into your paper, to avoid more confusions.

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

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

The alignment where the viewer could recognize that the pyramids on the ground looked like the stars in the sky. This could only be seen from the South and only when the stars are at their highest point of the night. Otherwise they would appear to be on their side in the East or in the West.

If the AE wanted to have the pyramids match the stars... isn't the size of the pyramids going to be hard to notice related to the stars? They would have only really been easily identifiable from far up in the air. Isn't that why this idea is favored so much by Fringe alien proponents?

Wouldn't building the pyramids so that their points formed a similar belt when seen from the North make more sense? Why then would the lowest star be the largest pyramid? It would almost seem the arrangement was not meant to be known about, other then by the pharoah and his engineers.

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

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

Sure. You're going to ignore datapoints and facts that don't line up with your pet idea. No big surprise there. Everyone does it.

DieChecker: Facts are facts...

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

I don't have a doctorate of science... But then again, apparently, niether do you.

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

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

You're the one making a claim and trying to publish articles. You... provide.... the... research.... Or if you would prefer to just continue to not be believed, that is fine with me too.

[Scott Creighton]

KS: It has nothing to do with my imagination. I'm not the one who developed the theory. It belongs to Egyptology, and the reasons for the theory meld very well with the belief system of the Old Kingdom.

SC: Indeed. It’s just another “theory” from some Egyptologist’s imagination. Where’s the actual hard evidence from the period that unequivocally proves this? Let me guess – there isn’t any. All we have are speculative fantasies on the part of the Egyptologists. Nice dodge on the Giza inter-quarter lines btw. Do the inter-quarter lines of the Gizamids extend all the way to Lunu too? No, they don’t, which pretty much scuppers the ‘Lunu alignment’.

KS: Meanwhile, your Orion theory does not fit real-world evidence…

SC: Oh but it does. In the real world we have the Giza pyramids and these pyramids have particular real-world base dimensions relative to each other. It can be shown through the use of the real-world Orion Belt stars that we can, in a simple and systematic fashion, reproduce these relative real-world proportions to a very high degree of accuracy.

Here, have a look: The Giza-Orion Blueprint.

That’s real-world evidence.

In the real world we have what is known as the ‘Precession of the Equinoxes’ which produces two culminations of the real-world Orion Belt stars (and other stars, of course). It just so happens that in the real world at Giza there are three small pyramids mimicking each of the two real-world culminations of Orion’s Belt. (Btw - that’s why G2 has no so-called ‘Queens Pyramids’ because there are only TWO culminations in the southwest and east horizons i.e. where we have G1 and G3).

Here, have a look:

The Precession of the Queens

That’s real world evidence. And I haven't even scratched the surface.

KS:…for a great many reasons posted and demonstrated by numerous UM members in several different discussions in recent years.

SC: None of which applies to anything I am posting.

KS: You can twist and bend and turn the night sky upside-down all you want—it still will not meld with anything relevant to Old Kingdom Egypt.

SC: Given that the people of the OK period regarded south as ‘UP’, I think it is more than relevant. It is relevant because, for far too long, this upside-down silliness has been used as an excuse by posters here and elsewhere to reject the Giza-Orion concordance. And it should stop now because those who use it as convenient excuse to reject the Giza-Orion concordance are simply wrong. I am here showing how and why they are wrong. It remains to be seen, however, if they will accept the fact of the AE world view that south=up. If they do not accept that simple truth then they are simply kidding themselves; burying their heads in the sand. But I rather suspect it will suit many here to do that because in so doing, in denying the truth (as opposed to denying ignorance), it will afford such individuals a convenient excuse to continue to reject the Giza-Orion concordance. "It's upside-down they will continue to bleat." as if that will somehow kill the argument. It might work (for a while) with those who are not so familiar with the subject matter - but the truth,as ever, will always come out in the end. As it is doing right now. Perhaps such people are just uneasy or they simply do not like to give a single point regardless of any truth?

KS: Your list of pyramids in your post to Sensible Logic doesn't prove anything, you understand?

SC: Indeed. But most of all it does not prove that those structures were intended as tombs.

KS: Many fringe posters before you have tried to ignore the pyramids as tombs, and many more after you will continue to do so.

SC: And I am sure there will also be many Egyptology apologists, such as yourself, who will continue to ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support the tomb theory whilst simultaneously ignoring the massive cache of recovery goods that have been found that supports the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT).

KS: All of you will be wrong.

SC: Why? Because an Egyptology apologist says so? As if!

KS: You're basing this on the fact that most pyramids have not yielded human remains contemporary to their construction. This is a remarkably stunted argument that no one familiar with ancient Egypt can take seriously.

SC: And if you actually read what I write (in articles, books and elsewhere), you will know that I do not base my argument solely on there being no remains found. There are a whole host of other factors that strongly indicate the early, giant pyramids were not conceived and built as tombs. It’s an absurd idea. (Don’t misunderstand me here – in my recent book I fully accept that later pyramids may have been conceived for the purposes of entombment - but not the first ones. The first were conceived as Recovery Vaults).

KS: I'm not sure you understand how many mastabas and shaft tombs and escarpment tombs and other tombs did not yield the human remains of their owners.

SC: Well, whooppeedooo! Amazing! You enter an actual tomb and find a mummy (or not, as the case may be)! Well, what would you expect to find in an actual tomb – an ice-cream van? Khufu’s own son’s and daughters were placed in mastabas. We have their inscribed sarcophagi. Which is somewhat peculiar given that not a single stone box in any of the early, giant pyramids were inscribed in any way. Given that numerous (though not all) sarcophagi found in mastabas were inscribed, one would have thought (statistically speaking) we might expect a few to have been inscribed in pyramids also. NONE were - but there is a very good reason for that. The pyramids weren't built as tombs and the 100% uninscribed stone boxes found therein served a completely different function - a function that is evidenced in the culture.

Khufu's own mother was placed in a shaft tomb deep under the Giza plateau. Khufu’s mother’s tomb was found (by a freak accident) some 4,500 years later. Khufu knew the first rule about successful and permanent burial – you do not mark your grave with anything, least of all with one of the largest manmade structures ever built. If Khufu knew what would keep his mother’s mortal remains safe for all eternity (i.e. an unmarked tomb), he would have known what would be good for himself too. His Great Pyramid was most certainly not the answer and the worst possible answer.

KS: You said in your opening post that your paper was published in New Dawn Magazine. Why not submit your paper to an academic journal, or even one of the publications for well-read history enthusiasts (e.g., Kmt, Ancient Egypt). Let's see how those journals respond to it. That would be interesting.

SC: Patience. These paradigm-changing theories take time. Slowly, one small step at a time.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Leonardo]

SC: Given that the people of the OK period regarded south as ‘UP’, I think it is more than relevant.

You still have not provided any evidence for this claim, Scott. You deride hypotheses such as the Lunu alignment as "speculative fantasies from the imagination", because you claim there is no evidence for those hypotheses. How can you expect anyone to treat your hypotheses any differently if you do not provide the evidence for them?

This claim that 'south' was synonymous with 'up' for the people of the Egyptian Old Kingdom seems fairly central to your hypothesis of an Orion-related alignment of the Giza pyramids. Without this claim having any credibility, due to lack of evidence, then your Orion hypothesis stands on very shaky ground.

[questionmark]

What I really want answered is why a constellation that is hardly ever visible in Egypt has any relevance save the forced alignment "similarity".

The highest Orion was ever over the horizon in Egypt is 15 degrees, and that was around 100,000 BC. That means that everywhere in the vicinity to a medium hill on the west the durn thing was not even visible.

In historic times the maximum elevation would have been less than 10 degrees.

And that only between mid December and mid January.

Or are we talking stranded and sadly, sadly, extinct travelers from some star in the Orion constellation?

[Sensible Logic]

SC: See my reply (post #23) to DieChecker. Ethnocentrically projecting modern conventions onto an ancient culture is hardly permissible.

The reference to cardinal points was made by you not I. When you overlay Orion's Belt with the pyramids as they are situated, an alignment does not occur. Only when you turn the map of the pyramid layout 180 degrees do you get a match. That kind of alteration is very like using a hammer to insert a square peg in a round hole and calling it a precise fit. It is the height of bad logic, bad reasoning and bad research.

Let’s just say that the alleged ‘evolution of mastaba to pyramid’ is NOT proof that the early, giant pyramids were designed and constructed for the express purpose of entombment of an AE king. Matabas (tombs) were – without exception – rectangular structures. Pyramids (Recovery Vaults) were square. The mastabas may well have inspired the design of the pyramid but that does not mean they were to serve the same function.

The Djoser pyramid was built as a square mastaba and enlarged twice. The first time the same in all directions and later only in two directions. Not necessarily an indication that it had to be rectangular but maybe that the final enlargement only needed to be on two sides. The Egyptians learned from each construction project and used what they learned to better perfect their techniques. So because some pyramids do not have bodies is an indication that the pyramids were not burial chambers?

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1452314.php/Archaeologists_discover_massive_sarcophagus_in_Egyptian_pyramid

That's kind of like digging up a casket from a grave and if it has no body declaring that caskets were not used to bury the dead.

If the AE wanted to build a massive structure for ANY reason it would - by necessity - have to take the form of a pyramid (or step pyramid in the earliest design) since this would offer the most stable, massive structure that could be built. It is a HUGE assumption that because the Step pyramid appears like a series of mastabas stacked one atop the other and because mastabas were tombs the stacked mastabas must also be a tomb. It is this kind of illogical thinking that has got Egyptology into the mess it is. By this reasoning the much larger but similar looking structure in the image in the bottom-left (image below) MUST also have been built as a mausoleum, right?

Or that the glass, steel and concrete structure to the far right (image below) is simply an evolution from the wooden structure and from the stone structure and that they all served the same function, right?

Simply because something LOOKS like something or looks like it evolved from something it cannot be assumed that the new form actually served the same function as the earlier form. That kind of thinking simply leads to erroneous assumptions.

Trying to use a style of architecture to prove your point actually doesn't. There are greek style tombs, libraries, court houses and even houses. They are for different purposes and the only thing they have in commmon is they house something or someone. The evolution from Mastaba to Step Pyramid to True pyramid was natural as the Egyptians perfected their construction techniques. Now tell me, If the pyramids were not designed as tombs why did many of them have their own mortuary?

As for your third link. Herodotus (aka, ‘The Father of Lies’) tells us the pyramids were built as tombs. On what evidence does Herodotus make such a claim? Did Herodotus ever find a mummy in any of the early giant pyramids to substantiate such a claim? No, he did not. And he further tells us that neither Khufu or Khafre were buried in the structures they built.

He was told by the Egyptians that was their purpose and I can't think of anything more rediculous than the Egyptians knowing what the pyramids purpose was, can you?

SC: Let’s think about this. Do you think it sensible logic that Khafre (Rachaf) - knowing what had happened to his father and his pyramid by the “multitudes” of angry peasants - would be so stupid as to inflict the same burden on them and suffer the same fate as his father? Does this tale remotely present any kind of sensible logic to you?

Recent research shows that pyramids were built not by slaves as first believed but by free workers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/6962860/Pyramids-not-built-by-slaves.html

So though Khafre's father may have used forced labor it's quite possible that Khafre himself used paid labor. Quite logical and sensible.

SC: I rather think you are seriously over-stating your case. It absolutely shows nothing of the sort. Do you have any REAL evidence to support the tomb theory?

If the pyramids were not designed as tombs why did they have their own mortuaries?

[cormac mac airt]

Sensible Logic,

The reference to cardinal points was made by you not I. When you overlay Orion's Belt with the pyramids as they are situated, an alignment does not occur. Only when you turn the map of the pyramid layout 180 degrees do you get a match. That kind of alteration is very like using a hammer to insert a square peg in a round hole and calling it a precise fit. It is the height of bad logic, bad reasoning and bad research.

The problems here are many-fold IMO.

1) While an argument can be made as to whether the Egyptians used Polaris or Thuban to determine True North, it would still be the northern stars that were utilized in aligning the pyramid sides in a N/S direction. Makes the souths importance rather questionable.

2) The Egyptians aligned mortuary temples and the Sphinx to the East as that was the primary point of interest to their beliefs. Souths importance is even more questionable.

3) While Orions Belt, as seen facing south, would be closer to the layout of the Gizamids, Orions Belt is at an approximate 15 degree angle south from due West while the layout of the Gizamids is closer to 51 degrees. This is true for the entirety of the 26^th century BC.

4) Since there are no extant contemporary records detailing events at either the time of Khafre or Khufu then Scott Creighton’s attempt to psycho-analyze Khafre’s thought processes are meaningless, to say the least.

cormac

Edited May 8, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Scott Creighton]

To be perfectly frank, many modern folks and especially the New Agers vastly overplay the ancient Egyptians' own concern with heavenly bodies. Of course the heavens were important to the Egyptians, but not to the extent that we ought to think of them as "master astronomers."

SC: This paper would tend to disagree with your comment above.

ABSTRACT

The eclipses in binary stars give precise information of orbital period changes. Goodricke discovered the 2.867 days period in the eclipses of Algol in the year 1783. The irregular orbital period changes of this longest known eclipsing binary continue to puzzle astronomers. The mass transfer between the two members of this binary should cause a long-term increase of the orbital period, but observations over two centuries have not confirmed this effect. Here, we present evidence indicating that the period of Algol was 2.850 days three millenia ago. For religious reasons, the ancient Egyptians have recorded this period into the Cairo Calendar, whch describes the repetitive changes of the Raging one. Cairo Calendar may be the oldest preserved historical document of the discovery of a variable star.

Our own civilisation did not (re)discover this fact about Algol until 1783.

Best wishes,

SC

[Scott Creighton]

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

SC: Look – I don’t really know what it is you are trying to say here but understand this – the ancient Egyptians did not plan the tomb of their successor or their successor’s successor. Or any of their successor’s queens tombs.

That at least I can agree to.

SC: We are constantly being told that the AE king planned his tomb to his own personal taste and nothing else. So now that you have been shown that the Gizamids do exhibit elements of a unified design you are NOW trying to shift the goalposts by claiming that the architect/engineer would have looked and determined the ratios that were pleasing to the eye…” The simple fact of this design is that G3 MUST be designed FIRST in order to determine the ratios of G2 and G1. Is this simple fact registering with you yet?

DieChecker: Using that same logic, we must say that the Empire State building was planned out in the 1700s when they surveyed New York in lower manhattan.

SC: It’s not the same logic. Name me the three points that you know were used to define the dimensions of the ESB.

DieChecker: Are you trying to say that it is unlikely that following pharoahs tried to redesign the layout of the Giza complex to fit their own monuments? I thought this was an established pharoanic practice, to use what came before to strengthen your own rule.

SC: No – I am saying Giza was a preconceived plan that was carefully followed and implemented (assuming mainstream chronology is correct) by three successive AE kings.

DieChecker: Look at Stonehenge. [snip – irrelevant].

DieChecker: Your basic assumption is undefendable. There is no proof it was all layed out, or planned in advance. Your proof consists of geometric lines and sizes of pyramids, which could have been layed out as construction began. There is no need for it to have been in advance.

SC: Except that you cannot have the dimensions of G2 or G1 UNLESS you have already defined the dimensions of G3 vis-à-vis the latest version of the Giza-Orion Blueprint

And why am I convinced that the above blueprint is the manner by which the Gizamids were designed? The math. I have presented this challenge before but there is no harm in presenting it here again.

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 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.

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

SC: You’re really not getting this, are you? Granted, a queen’s pyramid may be constructed in a relatively short time. But according to mainstream opinion, G3 (and its so-called queens) was built long after G1 and G2 – about 80-100 years. Do you not see the problem here?

DieChecker.Uh.. No. It seems quite clear to me. There is no problem.

SC: There is a problem. Mainstream Egyptology and its apologists insist there is no preconceived, unified plan at Giza. The above presentations and the math proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Egyptologists are wrong.

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

DieChecker: You have still in some way to proove that it was all drawn up on day 1. That is not a given. It is an assumption on your part. One that is un-evidenced other then with speculation about layout geometry, which could have been layed out in a hundred different steps.

SC: The math says otherwise. Try ‘The Challenge’ above and you will quickly realise the complete absurdity of your comment and futility of the task.

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

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

DieChecker: Who's math? Who's probabilities?

SC: Mine. You can check it yourself here. (See the end slides and check the numbers yourself, if you wish).

DieChecker: It is as easy to back engineer to get G3s dimensions as it is to forward engineer from G3 to get to G1 and G2. One however is very easy to show occured, and the other impossible.

SC: Completely absurd! G1 and G2 are ALREADY BUILT. Their proportions, however, depended on the proportions of G3 being known BEFORE they were built. G1 may well have been built first but it was not PLANNED FIRST. Absolutely not.

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

SC: Present your proof of that.

DieChecker: Scientific data shows that the pyramids were built one after the other within around 100 years.

SC: We know this. No one, including me, disputes it. But the sequential building of one pyramid after another has little bearing on them having been designed as a unified, homogenous, integrated, preconceived plan in th emanner I have demonstrated. It would have been a monumental task indeed to have constructed them all concurrently. (Although, it has to be said, Sneferu achieved the concurrent building of two of his four pyramids. Four pyramids – one body. Makes sense as a tomb, not! Recovery Vaults – absolutely yes!).

DieChecker: Also we know that G2 had it's plan changed after construction began. Why if all were layed out at the same time, would the G2 layout have to be changed, or allowed to be changed?

SC: This is explained here .

DieChecker: Are you proposing that all were built at roughly the same time?

SC: Absolutely NOT! That is the POINT I am making to you which is obviously going right over your head. There was a preconceived plan that would take 100 years to implement. So, how on earth (time machines notwithstanding) did the planner know there would be three kings (at Giza), that the first and third kings (at Giza, G1 and G3) would each require three tombs for their queens whilst the second king (at Giza, G2) would require none (in spite of this king having five known queens). How on Earth did the planner know what would occur 100 years into the future? The simple fact is he could NOT have known this 100 years in advance of these people even existing. So, it begs the question, what are all those structures in the designer’s plan? The designer could not have been designing tombs for people who didn’t even yet exist.

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

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

Diechecker: So you're not challenging the idea it was more likely?

SC: I never was. I am saying the PLAN was preconceived i.e. created BEFORE a single pyramid block was set in place. It took 100 years to implement the plan. That’s a big problem now for Egyptology, how they can explain structures in a plan that would require knowledge from the future. It’s a bit like you saying that you are going plan to build three houses for your three grandchildren when you don’t even have any immediate children yet. How do you know how many grandchildren you’ll have when you haven’t even got any children yet? This is the problem Egyptologists now have to explain with the preconceived plan (that took 100 years to implement) we find at Giza.

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

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

DieChecker: The problem here being you want me to DISPROOVE your theory, which is impossible.

SC: That’s not at all what I am asking. I present more than enough evidence to support my own theory.

DieChecker: This is your pet idea. I'm someone asking questions and pointing out flaws in Your Evidence.

SC: I rather doubt that since you have yet to fully comprehend what my evidence is.

DieChecker: I have no idea or theory that I need to proove. The burden of proof and evidence is on YOU.

SC: Indeed. And for the theory YOU believe in – the tomb theory – then the burden of proof is on YOU.

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

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

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

DieChecker: I see where you are coming from now. You should put such a diagram into your paper, to avoid more confusions.

SC: I already presented this. See Fig.1 in post #7.

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

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

DiChecker: The alignment where the viewer could recognize that the pyramids on the ground looked like the stars in the sky. This could only be seen from the South and only when the stars are at their highest point of the night. Otherwise they would appear to be on their side in the East or in the West.

SC: You are once again confusing my research with that of Robert Bauval. What I am saying is that the AEs recorded the Belt star asterism (doesn’t matter what angle) and placed this on the ground at Giza using the 44 degree strike of the plateau. My theory, unlike Bauval’s, does not require a correlation between the main Gizamids and the Belt stars at meridian transit (i.e. due south). The dating of the site I obtain from the Giza Precession Timeline (i.e. the ‘Lehner Line’ that runs between the two sets of Queens i.e. the two Orion culmination markers) is ca.2,630 BCE and not Bauval’s 10,500 BCE. And this date of ca,2,630 BCE marks the beginning of the pyramid-building age and it is recorded right their in the monuments themselves.

DieChecker: If the AE wanted to have the pyramids match the stars... isn't the size of the pyramids going to be hard to notice related to the stars? They would have only really been easily identifiable from far up in the air. Isn't that why this idea is favored so much by Fringe alien proponents?

SC: I have no idea what you are twittering about here. Aliens?

DieChecker: Wouldn't building the pyramids so that their points formed a similar belt when seen from the North make more sense? Why then would the lowest star be the largest pyramid?

SC: Because it has NOTHING to do with any star’s apparent magnitude (brightness). The individual relative proportions of each Gizamid is determined only from the PATTERN of the Belt stars NOT their brightness. See the latest Giza-Orion Blueprint.

DieChecker: It would almost seem the arrangement was not meant to be known about, other then by the pharoah and his engineers.

SC: How could it be missed? Have you seen the size of those structures?

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

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

DieChecker: Sure. You're going to ignore datapoints and facts that don't line up with your pet idea.

SC: Like what precisely?

DieChecker: Facts are facts...

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

DieChecker: I don't have a doctorate of science... But then again, apparently, niether do you.

SC: One need not be a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.

Quote

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

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

DieChecker: You're the one making a claim and trying to publish articles. You... provide.... the... research.... Or if you would prefer to just continue to not be believed, that is fine with me too.

SC: I don’t give a hee-haw what you think/believe. You believe the ‘tomb theory’ when there is no evidence to support it. If you want to believe in something when there is no evidence to support it, that’s your choice. I support the ‘Recovery Vault Theory’ because there exists 40,000 pieces of evidence and large quantities of all sorts of seed and a whole host of other evidence to support it. In short – the available evidence better supports the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT) than it ever will support the tomb theory.

Best wishes,

SC

[Scott Creighton]

Leo: Given that the people of the OK period regarded south as ‘UP’, I think it is more than relevant. You still have not provided any evidence for this claim, Scott.

SC: Which does not mean the citations from academics do not exist (see below). But even in presenting these to you (which I have, below), you will simply ignore them and carry on regardless, won't you. Because that is what you do. Doesn’t matter how much your own ideas are disproved, you simply ignore the evidence you do not agree with, that does not conform to your own beliefs and carry on regardless. Not very scientific. And even if these citations from academia supporting the AE south=up view did not exist (which, of course they do - see below), it still will not affect what I am arguing. If Krupp wishes to argue the AEs regarded north in the same manner we do today (ethnocentric projection if ever there was), then Krupp would have to present evidence that supported his view that the AEs regarded north in the same way we do. He has never done so.

Leo: You deride hypotheses such as the Lunu alignment as "speculative fantasies from the imagination",

SC: Because the inter-quarter lines of the Gizamids effectively disprove it.

Leo: …because you claim there is no evidence for those hypotheses. How can you expect anyone to treat your hypotheses any differently if you do not provide the evidence for them?

SC: I present far more evidence in this thread to support the RVT than a few citations from a group of academics (which do exist - see below). Here they are – not that I have any hope whatsoever that they will remotely change one iota in your thinking. Now - where’s your evidence that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs and intended to align with Lunu?

"...(the Egyptian) took his orientation from the Nile River, the source of all life. He faced the south, from which the stream came. One of the terms for 'south' is also the term for 'face'..."

- Henri Frankfort and John A. Wilson, Before Philosophy, Pelican Books, 1961, p. 51.

"Contrary to modern usage the Ancient Egyptians orientated themselves to face southwards. At their back lay the Mediterranean and the rest of the ancient world. The west was for them the right, and the east the left."

- J. M. Plumley, Ancient cosmologies, Carmen Blacker and Michael Loewe (eds.), George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1975 p. 19).

"From the Egyptian viewpoint, the concepts of what was in front and rear also led to the extending beliefs of "left" or "right" as value-laden concepts. Since the ancient Egyptians oriented themselves within their country from the direction of the Nile's origin point (the south), the positive aspects of "front" and "back" also took on cardinal directional indicators from these basic physiological orientations, being south and north, respectively. Similarly, based upon the physiological orientation of front/rear, the right and left of the body also came to signify certain values in the Egyptian mind - based from the continuing flow of logic of directional bearings."

- (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43).

"Cardinal directions - that is, north, south, east, and west - were, as noted above, derived as objective points from the original physiological orientation of the body in space. The function of cardinal directions is to define places external to the body at far points. However, defined directions are more than functional: they are the "...zones which serve for orientation within the world of empirical perception: each [direction] has a specific reality and significance of its own, an inherent mythical life" (Cassirer 1955: 98). For the ancient Egyptian, such directions were terms used for the limits of creation, drawing of borders between the inhabited and controlled lands of divine creation and the world's original undefined state (Brunner 1957: 614).

In the Egypto-centred universe, the definition of the four cardinal directions was originally conceived in relation to geographic and physiological indicators, as we have shown (See Fig.1, supra). Orienting themselves in their land from the direction of the Nile River's flow, the "top of the map" for the ancient Egyptian world view began from the south.

From this facing direction, body directional values were associated with the corresponding cardinal directions, which later took on symbolic, cultic and ritual dimensions as the reflection of the cosmos was extended to major aspects of Egyptian life (Brunner 1957: 617; O'Connor 1995: 274; Wilkinson 2000: 62 ff.) (See Fig. 2, supra). Thus, "west" was deemed as a "positive" direction linked with the right hand, while "east" was linked to the left hand, with a less favourable status, particularly in the New Kingdom (Morenz 1975: 281). The direction of "north" seems to have held a negative or ambivalent position in value, although it was relegated to the idea (following from the Egyptian southerly orientation of direction), as a direction behind a person's orienting perception (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43). As Frankfort further notes, it should be taken as significant that elements for the phrase for "northernmost border," /pHww/ are also to be found in the expression of /Xr pHwi/, also has the meaning of "behind" and "subordinate," while the phrase /Hr pHwi/ carries the sense of being "behind one's head"

- (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43; Hannig 2000: 914a, 633a and 633b, respectively). (Griffis 2002: 13-16)

Leo: This claim that 'south' was synonymous with 'up' for the people of the Egyptian Old Kingdom seems fairly central to your hypothesis of an Orion-related alignment of the Giza pyramids. Without this claim having any credibility, due to lack of evidence, then your Orion hypothesis stands on very shaky ground.

SC: It's not actually as central as you think because, at the end of the day, Krupp would still have to prove that the AEs used our modern convention that north=up. He has never done so. See references above for the AE world view that south=up – not that I have any hope whatsoever that it will make one iota of a difference to your view. You will carry on regardless, dismissing the Giza-Orion concordance as being upside-down. You will continue to claim Krupp proved it when, you should know by now, he has done absolutely nothing of the sort.

Best wishes,

SC

[questionmark]

We still have no satisfactory answer as to why the ancient Egyptians (or whoever you claim did it) would use a hardly ever visible constellation to base their layout on.

[Scott Creighton]

We still have no satisfactory answer as to why the ancient Egyptians (or whoever you claim did it) would use a hardly ever visible constellation to base their layout on.

SC: The Orion constellation, including the Belt stars, are perfectly visible at Giza ca.2630 BCE.

Best wishes,

SC

[cormac mac airt]

SC: The Orion constellation, including the Belt stars, are perfectly visible at Giza ca.2630 BCE.

The Giza pyramids were not constructed starting in circa 2630 BC.

Per " Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt", Science 328, 1554 (2010),

Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al.

95 percentile dates given for Khufu are 2629 to 2558 with a median date of 2593/2594.

cormac

[questionmark]

SC: The Orion constellation, including the Belt stars, are perfectly visible at Giza ca.2630 BCE.

Best wishes,

SC

Right, so we know that you have made your homework, nice it only took you 3 days. Would have also been nice if we had a picture of all other months where the durn thing is just not there.

Now we come to a much better part of the story, which is why Orion? First the symbol is at least 2000 years younger than the pyramids, all cultures had their own constellation definitions and pictures and it was at least 45 degrees off. And, we don't know about a single Egyptian representation that contains Orion.

From Seti's tomb we know that Orion is not even near anything they considered a sky symbol:

Besides, if we take the night sky in Giza around 2500 BC:

without any artificial lines lines, the most likely candidate is in the Egyptian constellation of Apis, or the stars we know nowadays as BSC 16 Zet Hya, BSC 13 rho Hya, BSC 04 Del Hya. At least nobody has to make mental acrobatics to see that they coincide with the pyramid layout and face, surprise, surprise, north.

And that is only one of 17200 possibilities my pattern recognition program finds for Giza within your precision and the main line facing north, if we start making acrobatics with visible stars facing also east to west (within the angle of Orion) we come to over 2.7E16 possibilities.

So again my question: Why Orion?

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionmark

[Scott Creighton]

The Giza pyramids were not constructed starting in circa 2630 BC.

SC: I didn't say they were. This was the start of the pyramid-building age. Read my earlier post. The Belt stars would have been just as visible at Giza during the reign of all 4th dynasty kings.

Cormac: Per " Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt", Science 328, 1554 (2010),

Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al.

95 percentile dates given for Khufu are 2629 to 2558 with a median date of 2593/2594.

"Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Zahi Hawaass

Best wishes,

SC

[cormac mac airt]

This was the start of the pyramid-building age.

Wrong as the first pyramid was built for Djoser whose dating, per the same article is given as 2691 to 2625 with a median date of 2658.

"Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Zahi Hawass

One of the more assinine statements made by Hawass. And you believe it? That's sad. But I understand why since if you can bastardize Ancient Egyptian history and the science in support of it then maybe the gullible will believe you know what you're talking about.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Right, so we know that you have made your homework, nice it only took you 3 days.

SC: I am under no obligation to answer posts - yours or anyone else's.

QM: Would have also been nice if we had a picture of all other months where the durn thing is just not there.

SC: So what's your point? The AE's most important star, Sirius, is "just not there" for a considerable period of the year. So what!

QM: And, we don't know about a single Egyptian representation that contains Orion.

SC: Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Look closely at the two images below:

QM: And that is only one of 17200 possibilities my pattern recognition program finds for Giza within your precision and the main line facing north, if we start making acrobatics with visible stars facing also east to west (within the angle of Orion) we come to over 2.7E16 possibilities.

SC: None of which - with the exception of Orion's Belt - matches the culminations presented also at Giza.

QM: So again my question: Why Orion?

SC: My answer - why not?

Best wishes,

SC

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I didn't say they were. This was the start of the pyramid-building age. Read my earlier post. The Belt stars would have been just as visible at Giza during the reign of all 4th dynasty kings.

Best wishes,

SC

I don't have a lot of time to post today so I'm just popping in, and I noticed your refutation of the carbon dating. Beware the things said by Zahi Hawass. Stick only to his written material in the professional literature, where he's solid. No Egyptologist or archaeologist would agree with Hawass's statement on carbon dating, and I think you yourself know it's grossly incorrect. Carbon dating is extensively used in archaeology and is highly reliable, especially at the level of precision it's reached today. It's a fundamental tool in archaeology, and what Hawass's bizarre comment doesn't include is the fact that he's used it extensively in his own excavation analyses.

With all the work you've put into your paper, Scott, I find myself incredulous that you would believe such a statement. I have to think you're quote-mining, for some reason. It's not a healthy thing to ignore basic science.

The paper cormac cited is rock solid. I'd also suggest Bonani et all from 2001, whose report summarizes the extensive carbon-dating tests conducted on numerous Old and Middle Kingdom monuments, including those at Giza.

[questionmark]

SC: I am under no obligation to answer posts - yours or anyone else's.

SC: So what's your point? The AE's most important star, Sirius, is "just not there" for a considerable period of the year. So what!

SC: Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Look closely at the two images below:

SC: None of which - with the exception of Orion's Belt - matches the culminations presented also at Giza.

SC: My answer - why not?

Best wishes,

SC

In plain English, it is so by ordre de Mufti, no matter how much it has to be twisted.

Nice one, which is precisely what I wanted you to confirm.

Sorry, but that does not fly...except there where evidence is not needed

Which means that I was right, the right place is the New Age forum.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I am under no obligation to answer posts - yours or anyone else's.

You are correct. You're under no obligation. Still, you're the one who brought this debate to us, so if someone presents a counterargument and wishes a reply, you should at least feel obligated to address the comment. Otherwise, why the hell are you here?

SC: Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Look closely at the two images below:

...

Scott, I think you can appreciate the importance of citing evidence germane to the time period in question. You're all over the map (pun intended).

The first image is quite recognizable. It comes from the cenotaph tomb (TT353) of Senenmut at Deir el Bahri, and dates to around 1470 BCE. This is over a thousand years after the construction of the monuments at Giza. This is the oldest-known star map or astrological representation in pharaonic Egypt. It represents the southern and northern regions of the night sky and was painted as a ritual seasonal map—it has nothing to do with building activities.

The second image is even more recognizable. It's the Dendera zodiac, now in the Louvre. It dates to around 50 BCE, near the end of the Ptolemaic Period, and this was well more than two millennia after the construction of the monuments at Giza. Moreover, it is a clear mixture of Greek and Egyptian representations and, at best, a bastardization of the two. It would've meant something to the priests who served at Dendera around the time of Cleopatra VII, but it's quite irrelevant to Giza.

You seem to be compressing almost 3,000 years of religion into one point, as though the religious practices of Senenmut's time or of Ptolemaic times were the same as those of Khufu's time. Absolutely not. Even by Senenmut's time the pharaonic religion, and especially its tenets of afterlife beliefs for both king and commoner, were significantly different from the same in Khufu's time.

So while the two images might contain a representation of Orion, this does not imply relevance to the people and events of Dynasty 4. Short of presenting rock-solid evidence for Orion or cultic practices tied to it in Dynasty 4, your theme does not survive scrutiny.

[questionmark]

So while the two images might contain a representation of Orion, this does not imply relevance to the people and events of Dynasty 4. Short of presenting rock-solid evidence for Orion or cultic practices tied to it in Dynasty 4, your theme does not survive scrutiny.

To say the truth, I spotted that too, but in view that he is either unwilling or unable to give a reason to why he thinks that Orion was important to the ancient Egyptians I thought I might quit this exercise in futility.

[cormac mac airt]

You are correct. You're under no obligation. Still, you're the one who brought this debate to us, so if someone presents a counterargument and wishes a reply, you should at least feel obligated to address the comment. Otherwise, why the hell are you here?

Scott, I think you can appreciate the importance of citing evidence germane to the time period in question. You're all over the map (pun intended).

The first image is quite recognizable. It comes from the cenotaph tomb (TT353) of Senenmut at Deir el Bahri, and dates to around 1470 BCE. This is over a thousand years after the construction of the monuments at Giza. This is the oldest-known star map or astrological representation in pharaonic Egypt. It represents the southern and northern regions of the night sky and was painted as a ritual seasonal map—it has nothing to do with building activities.

The second image is even more recognizable. It's the Dendera zodiac, now in the Louvre. It dates to around 50 BCE, near the end of the Ptolemaic Period, and this was well more than two millennia after the construction of the monuments at Giza. Moreover, it is a clear mixture of Greek and Egyptian representations and, at best, a bastardization of the two. It would've meant something to the priests who served at Dendera around the time of Cleopatra VII, but it's quite irrelevant to Giza.

You seem to be compressing almost 3,000 years of religion into one point, as though the religious practices of Senenmut's time or of Ptolemaic times were the same as those of Khufu's time. Absolutely not. Even by Senenmut's time the pharaonic religion, and especially its tenets of afterlife beliefs for both king and commoner, were significantly different from the same in Khufu's time.

So while the two images might contain a representation of Orion, this does not imply relevance to the people and events of Dynasty 4. Short of presenting rock-solid evidence for Orion or cultic practices tied to it in Dynasty 4, your theme does not survive scrutiny.

The key word there is "might" and I have to wonder how and by whom any representation from the cenotaph of Senenmut was determined to represent, specifically, Orion's Belt. An understanding that would appear to be anachronistic, to say the least, since there are no extant representations of AE constellations from the 4th dynasty.

cormac

[Leonardo]

SC: Which does not mean the citations from academics do not exist (see below). But even in presenting these to you (which I have, below), you will simply ignore them and carry on regardless, won't you. Because that is what you do. Doesn’t matter how much your own ideas are disproved, you simply ignore the evidence you do not agree with, that does not conform to your own beliefs and carry on regardless. Not very scientific. And even if these citations from academia supporting the AE south=up view did not exist (which, of course they do - see below), it still will not affect what I am arguing. If Krupp wishes to argue the AEs regarded north in the same manner we do today (ethnocentric projection if ever there was), then Krupp would have to present evidence that supported his view that the AEs regarded north in the same way we do. He has never done so.

SC: Because the inter-quarter lines of the Gizamids effectively disprove it.

SC: I present far more evidence in this thread to support the RVT than a few citations from a group of academics (which do exist - see below). Here they are – not that I have any hope whatsoever that they will remotely change one iota in your thinking. Now - where’s your evidence that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs and intended to align with Lunu?

SC: It's not actually as central as you think because, at the end of the day, Krupp would still have to prove that the AEs used our modern convention that north=up. He has never done so. See references above for the AE world view that south=up – not that I have any hope whatsoever that it will make one iota of a difference to your view. You will carry on regardless, dismissing the Giza-Orion concordance as being upside-down. You will continue to claim Krupp proved it when, you should know by now, he has done absolutely nothing of the sort.

Best wishes,

SC

Scott, first thank you for the citations. At least we now have something to debate from. Second, please stop the ad homs, they do nothing for your argument except detract from it.

While I appreciate the Ancient Egyptians considered the South a 'positive direction', and may have based their opinion of the 'positivity' of other cardinal directions on facing this way, none of the citiations you posted grant any credence to the view of 'South' as 'Up'.

You can look to extrapolate that the association of south and north with front and behind (respectively) would also grant a similar association of south and north with up and down, as the former is 'positive' and the latter 'negative'. But that extrapolation is not exhibited or suggested in any of the citations, leaving it to be an unsupported assumption.

You have made this view of south=up relevant to your theory by suggesting this is the reason the ground plan of the Giza pyramids appears to be (loosely) based on an inverted Orion asterism. In the evidence you provide, there is no verification of this view. It might give a hint of possibility, but that does nothing to provide credibility for your theory.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Leonardo