Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Spiros

Giza: astral vs geographical theories

139 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Spiros

The prominent stellar theories relating to the Giza pyramid design are Robert Bauval's Orion theory and Andrew Collins' Cygnus theory. 

The problem with these is that the pyramid apex to star mapping is not precise. They are more or less equally imprecise with the central pyramid angle error in Orion's case being more than 4 degrees.

Although I believe the ancient architects were aware of the similarity between what they designed and the position of key stars of the aforementioned  constellations I think their primary focus was different. They were primarily focused on geography  not astronomy, on mountains not stars.

In June I published the book "Amphion's Secret" at Amazon:

*snip*

This month I published in book: "The Giza Mountains of Sinai" at Amazon:

*snip*

The first book reveals how the design of IV dynasty pyramids following those of Sneferu were planned so as to define mountains and mountain ranges in Greece(Hellas). The structures of the first king of the V dynasty is also  studied.

The second book presents a parallel encoding, one that focuses on Egypt. It thus explains how landmarks in Greece and Egypt are divinely interlinked to form a geometrically attractive grand plan.    
 

Edited by Saru
Advertising - see rule 1a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

When is the movie version coming out ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
30 minutes ago, third_eye said:

When is the movie version coming out ?

~

It would be premature to take such a step, since there is a lot more that needs to be explained/documented. We need to have a clearer overall picture regarding pyramid evolution, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Also the major question of "why?" needs to be tackled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

So your advertising your work? Which I assume isn't free of charge?

Can't see this thread lasting long.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
23 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So your advertising your work? Which I assume isn't free of charge?

Can't see this thread lasting long.

I opened this thread so as to discuss pyramid design. There are different theories out there regarding this issue. You could find complex geometric Giza Plateau solutions as also astronomic ideas like those of the authors mentioned  in my previous post. One needs to look into the self-consistency and accuracy of these theories and if it can explain "anomalies" like that of pyramids erected in other pyramid locations(Zawiyet el-Aryan, Abu Rowash).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
17 minutes ago, Spiros said:

I opened this thread so as to discuss pyramid design. There are different theories out there regarding this issue. You could find complex geometric Giza Plateau solutions as also astronomic ideas like those of the authors mentioned  in my previous post. One needs to look into the self-consistency and accuracy of these theories and if it can explain "anomalies" like that of pyramids erected in other pyramid locations(Zawiyet el-Aryan, Abu Rowash).

They are probably staggered, so the transportation of the large blocks used in construction would be more efficient. Ie it's easier and more efficient to transport them in as straight a line as possible. And correlations with their outlined design and other phenomenon, may or may not be just apophenia. 

Consider it from a simple engineering and planning perspective.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros

This is a very nice way to depict what the Giza design was. Two fingers depict the two mountain series alignments(2 distinct geographic mappings). The triple continent pyramid geographical correlation. You have a direction and a horizontal scaling factor. The other finger depicts the vertical scaling factor. You have a direction vertical to the previous one and a different scaling factor. 

265px-Right_hand_rule_cross_product.svg.

Edited by Spiros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Spiros said:

I opened this thread so as to discuss pyramid design. There are different theories out there regarding this issue. You could find complex geometric Giza Plateau solutions as also astronomic ideas like those of the authors mentioned  in my previous post. One needs to look into the self-consistency and accuracy of these theories and if it can explain "anomalies" like that of pyramids erected in other pyramid locations(Zawiyet el-Aryan, Abu Rowash).

History isn't science. All pyramids were built by humans, so their planning, design, and construction are liable to illogical and unforeseeable factors. Trying to find some ur-theory that will "scientifically" explain their placement is both a fool's errand and an effort to ahistorically foist the concept of modern science back on to  Egyptian culture.

If your book suggests anything different, well -- self-publishing allows for any old tosh, doesn't it?

By the way, if you try to suggest you /didn't/ come here to peddle your book, you insult the intelligence of everyone here. Great intro for yourself.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
8 hours ago, Spiros said:

The prominent stellar theories relating to the Giza pyramid design are Robert Bauval's Orion theory and Andrew Collins' Cygnus theory. 

The problem with these is that the pyramid apex to star mapping is not precise. They are more or less equally imprecise with the central pyramid angle error in Orion's case being more than 4 degrees.

Although I believe the ancient architects were aware of the similarity between what they designed and the position of key stars of the aforementioned  constellations I think their primary focus was different. They were primarily focused on geography  not astronomy, on mountains not stars.

In June I published the book "Amphion's Secret" at Amazon:

*snip*

This month I published in book: "The Giza Mountains of Sinai" at Amazon:

*snip*

The first book reveals how the design of IV dynasty pyramids following those of Sneferu were planned so as to define mountains and mountain ranges in Greece(Hellas). The structures of the first king of the V dynasty is also  studied.

The second book presents a parallel encoding, one that focuses on Egypt. It thus explains how landmarks in Greece and Egypt are divinely interlinked to form a geometrically attractive grand plan.    
 

Why on Earth would the Egyptians bother to "encode" something in Greece, when they apparently didn't know about it and never traveled that far and there weren't any people around there anyway?

If they found Greece so interesting, why didn't they settle it/travel there/leave monument there (as they did in other sacred and important sites)/include it in their stories of travel?  And why didn't the early Greek civilizations have any context from Egypt?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
15 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Why on Earth would the Egyptians bother to "encode" something in Greece, when they apparently didn't know about it and never traveled that far and there weren't any people around there anyway?

Johnny Depp might not be available by the time the movie is ready to shoot ... they wanted Tom but Tom had other ideas

~

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
54 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Why on Earth would the Egyptians bother to "encode" something in Greece, when they apparently didn't know about it and never traveled that far and there weren't any people around there anyway?

If they found Greece so interesting, why didn't they settle it/travel there/leave monument there (as they did in other sacred and important sites)/include it in their stories of travel?  And why didn't the early Greek civilizations have any context from Egypt?

I was wondering the same thing. This is even long before the Mycenaean period, and we don't find tangible evidence of Egyptian material culture in Greece (indicating commerce till the Mycenaean period). And to begin with, the Egyptians showed not the least bit of interest in foreign lands, especially in that early timeframe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
21 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I was wondering the same thing. This is even long before the Mycenaean period, and we don't find tangible evidence of Egyptian material culture in Greece (indicating commerce till the Mycenaean period). And to begin with, the Egyptians showed not the least bit of interest in foreign lands, especially in that early timeframe.

The only sacred landscape I know of in Egypt is in the south (Nubia) and those are well referenced.  I suspect this particular effort is based in nationalism and not in any real scholarship.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
16 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

History isn't science. All pyramids were built by humans, so their planning, design, and construction are liable to illogical and unforeseeable factors. Trying to find some ur-theory that will "scientifically" explain their placement is both a fool's errand and an effort to ahistorically foist the concept of modern science back on to  Egyptian culture.

If your book suggests anything different, well -- self-publishing allows for any old tosh, doesn't it?

By the way, if you try to suggest you /didn't/ come here to peddle your book, you insult the intelligence of everyone here. Great intro for yourself.

--Jaylemurph

History is a kind of science. It is a social science. The fact that pyramids were built by humans, does not automatically mean that they were planned, designed, or that their construction was supervised by humans, at least the IV dynasty Egyptians. History is not autonomous like mathematics.  It relies on the findings of other sciences like linguistics, archeology, architecture, geography, etc, to build its case, to compose "what happened, by who, why, and how". It needs thus to explain the evidence. There is no way architectural wonders like the Giza pyramids were erected without the help of advanced mathematics and natural sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
13 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Why on Earth would the Egyptians bother to "encode" something in Greece, when they apparently didn't know about it and never traveled that far and there weren't any people around there anyway?

If they found Greece so interesting, why didn't they settle it/travel there/leave monument there (as they did in other sacred and important sites)/include it in their stories of travel?  And why didn't the early Greek civilizations have any context from Egypt?

In my book "Amphion's Secret" I show that the ancient Egyptians were in contact with ancient Greeks and there was trade between these cultures as early as the pyramid building epoch. I post what the pyramid texts have to say and I look into the name that the Egyptians used for the Greeks. During IV or V dynasty Egypt there were three Greek civilizations blooming in parallel, the Minoan, the Cycladic, and the Proto-Helladic civilizations. 

Central to my theory is the great holy city, the city of gods and heroes, a city that was inhabited as early as the Greek Late Neolithic period(5,300 - 4,500 BC).
In my book I also look into the Greek pyramids and explain why they were erected.  They are as old as the Egyptian pyramids. If one looks at ancient Hellenic mythology one sees references of Egyptian settlements(Danaus). According to wiki:

Quote

In Greek mythology, Danaus was the twin brother of Aegyptus, a mythical king of Egypt. The myth of Danaus is a foundation legend (or re-foundation legend) of Argos, one of the foremost Mycenaean cities of the Peloponnesus. In Homer's Iliad, "Danaans" ("tribe of Danaus") and "Argives" commonly designate the Greek forces opposed to the Trojans.

If someone looks into the information encoded in the pyramids he will agree that it was not designed by "local - any kind of local" humans. To whoever designed it, Greece, Egypt, or  Phoenicia and Asia Minor, were simply a specific area of planet Earth. 

Edited by Spiros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
12 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I was wondering the same thing. This is even long before the Mycenaean period, and we don't find tangible evidence of Egyptian material culture in Greece (indicating commerce till the Mycenaean period). And to begin with, the Egyptians showed not the least bit of interest in foreign lands, especially in that early timeframe.

See my previous post. We know that the Egyptians were in contact with Chanan and Phoenicia from back then, and some believe that due to architectural influences they were in contact with the Sumerians. I think the reason we don't find overwhelming evidence of this is that the Egyptian writing system was in its early stages and we thus don't find a lot of written accounts.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
12 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The only sacred landscape I know of in Egypt is in the south (Nubia) and those are well referenced.  I suspect this particular effort is based in nationalism and not in any real scholarship.

I don't think Nubia is considered Egypt. But what's sacred about the landscape of Nubia? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
3 hours ago, Spiros said:

I don't think Nubia is considered Egypt. But what's sacred about the landscape of Nubia? 

Yes, Nubia is part of Egypt (historically) during a number of periods.  There's several sacred mountains dedicated to various deities; most famously Amun-Re (the main deity of Egypt) and Meretseger.  Very sacred spaces also included Abydos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
4 hours ago, Spiros said:

In my book "Amphion's Secret" I show that the ancient Egyptians were in contact with ancient Greeks and there was trade between these cultures as early as the pyramid building epoch.

This doesn't show up in any Greek sources.  And if they were in contact, why didn't the Greeks learn stoneworking techniques from the Egyptians of that time and why didn't they import the very nice Egyptian pottery?

Quote

I post what the pyramid texts have to say and I look into the name that the Egyptians used for the Greeks. During IV or V dynasty Egypt there were three Greek civilizations blooming in parallel, the Minoan, the Cycladic, and the Proto-Helladic civilizations. 

The Cycladic and proto-Helladic aren't civilizations.  They were at best village culture groups.  The ancient Minoans had very distinctive pottery and technology... none of which seems to have gotten to the Egyptians.

Also... let me guess... you don't actually read ancient Egyptian and you were using the compilation translation "Pyramid Texts" from either Mercer or Budge?  I hate to sound cynical, but this is a common error made by many "armchair researchers" who haven't done a deep study of ancient Egypt.  Most of the researchers we encounter along this line don't know how much material there is that supports the current interpretation of the Pyramid Texts.  

And of course these "armchair researchers" also have hundreds of different interpretations of these words --and not a single one of them matches each other or anything written by Egyptians.

Quote

Central to my theory is the great holy city, the city of gods and heroes, a city that was inhabited as early as the Greek Late Neolithic period(5,300 - 4,500 BC).
In my book I also look into the Greek pyramids and explain why they were erected.  They are as old as the Egyptian pyramids. If one looks at ancient Hellenic mythology one sees references of Egyptian settlements(Danaus). According to wiki:

The story of Aegyptus is a late Greek myth - the key is in his lineage, which includes names from Hebrew (which didn't exist before 1000 BC.)  And there is no trace of a city in the neolithic period (cities have a huge archaeological footprint.)

Quote

If someone looks into the information encoded in the pyramids he will agree that it was not designed by "local - any kind of local" humans. To whoever designed it, Greece, Egypt, or  Phoenicia and Asia Minor, were simply a specific area of planet Earth. 

The Greek Pyramids weren't built until 2,000+ years after the Egyptian pyramids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_pyramids  We know they aren't any older because there's no references to them in other works.  The stonework is pretty standard for that time period.

As to the "encoded information" -- I also suspect that you may be someone who (like many others) simply looks at the three pyramids and ignores the 8 (built at the same time) around them and the ruined pyramid of Djedefre and the other 100+ pyramids... along with the structures that enclosed them and the buildings that stood with them.  Humans, particularly those from civilizations that aren't very literate, don't spend time making up strange codes... the writing (which almost nobody could read) was enough of a code for anyone.  Things that are important and sacred are represented in unambiguous ways -- Greeks had groves and temples and priests and priestesses and didn't use any special codes to show where any of this was.  Likewise the Egyptians had their sacred spaces that they treated in exactly the same way.  They never encoded Abydos (one of the most sacred spaces in Egypt) or any of the other places in art or in buildings or anything else.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Spiros said:

History is a kind of science. It is a social science. The fact that pyramids were built by humans, does not automatically mean that they were planned, designed, or that their construction was supervised by humans, at least the IV dynasty Egyptians. History is not autonomous like mathematics.  It relies on the findings of other sciences like linguistics, archeology, architecture, geography, etc, to build its case, to compose "what happened, by who, why, and how". It needs thus to explain the evidence. There is no way architectural wonders like the Giza pyramids were erected without the help of advanced mathematics and natural sciences.

Well, your last sentence confirms you're no sort of scientist or historian: in neither field do you arrive with a theory and then find the data to support it; you get data first /then/ arrive at a theory.

And if you've got magical data supporting the above theory, you'd be the most famous historian in the world.

I can't help but notice you're not.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Yes, Nubia is part of Egypt (historically) during a number of periods.  There's several sacred mountains dedicated to various deities; most famously Amun-Re (the main deity of Egypt) and Meretseger.  Very sacred spaces also included Abydos.

wiki:

Ancient Egypt conquered Nubian territory in various eras, and incorporated parts of the area into its provinces. The Nubians in turn were to conquer Egypt under its 25th Dynasty. However, relations between the two peoples also show peaceful cultural interchange and cooperation, including mixed marriages.

Nubia was thus conquered by Egyptians but this does not mean it was part of Egypt. Nubians and Egyptians were two distinct peoples, no matter what cultural or other interactions they naturally had as neighbors.  OK when you refer to sacred landscape you mean sacred hills not true mountains around important cities or necropolis'. I have not studied the placement of these positions, a reason being that you cannot easily pinpoint a specific geographical coordinate when you are considering such low hills.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
53 minutes ago, Spiros said:

Nubia was thus conquered by Egyptians but this does not mean it was part of Egypt.  Nubians and Egyptians were two distinct peoples, no matter what cultural or other interactions they naturally had as neighbors.

Oh yes, it was part of Egypt's empire... not permanently but often enough -- and the Nubian kings became rulers of Egypt in the 25th Dynasty.  

Quote

 OK when you refer to sacred landscape you mean sacred hills not true mountains around important cities or necropolis'. I have not studied the placement of these positions, a reason being that you cannot easily pinpoint a specific geographical coordinate when you are considering such low hills.  

Egypt has very few true mountains... and none of them were sacred.   They did have "conceptual mountains" but they don't correspond to actual areas on the landscape and certainly not in any points outside Egypt.

It's a complicated topic... here's a good summary of it: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horizon.htm

 Greece had sacred mountains, yes.  Greece has lots of mountains.   

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
8 hours ago, Spiros said:

Nubia was thus conquered by Egyptians but this does not mean it was part of Egypt. Nubians and Egyptians were two distinct peoples, no matter what cultural or other interactions they naturally had as neighbors.  OK when you refer to sacred landscape you mean sacred hills not true mountains around important cities or necropolis'. I have not studied the placement of these positions, a reason being that you cannot easily pinpoint a specific geographical coordinate when you are considering such low hills.  

The Egyptians very much thought of Nubia as part of Egypt, at least during those long stretches when they were able to maintain control of it. Nubia was the source for much of their gold and a conduit for many other valuavle luxury items. From the Middle Kingdom Egypt erected massive fortifications there and installed large garrisons to control the area. Nubia was the only land the Egyptians directly colonized and controlled; they even instituted overt administrative positions in Nubia, with their own viceroys and governors.

And the two lands were not so distinct as you make it sound. At the start of pharaonic history (say 3100 BCE) there was scant difference between the Nubian A Group culture and the powerful Egyptian polities to the far south (Hierakonpolis, Naqada, and This). It's pretty clear all of these people emerged from a common culture by late prehistory. Some of the very recognizable ancient Egyptian icons may have originated in Nubia. The white crown, for instance, first appears on an unassuming incense burner from Qustul in Lower Nubia.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiros
Quote

This doesn't show up in any Greek sources.  And if they were in contact, why didn't the Greeks learn stone working techniques from the Egyptians of that time and why didn't they import the very nice Egyptian pottery?


How could it? The oldest writing system used in Hellas is the Cretan hieroglyphic which dates no earlier than 2,100 BC. The Greeks just like the Sumerians did not use stone that much because it was not that easy to find and quarry. Egypt was blessed in this aspect. This is the reason why the Amphion pyramid was erected using bud brick not stone. The Sumerians also used mud brick in their ziggurats. Greeks were producing pottery thousands of years before the Egyptians. I don't know if the pottery unearthed from the Amphion pyramid(see Spyropoulos' relative book) has any similarity with that of Lower Egypt.  

 

Quote

The Cycladic and proto-Helladic aren't civilizations.  They were at best village culture groups.  The ancient Minoans had very distinctive pottery and technology... none of which seems to have gotten to the Egyptians.

Civilizations of Greece were not as centralized and urban as those of great riverside civilizations(Egypt, Sumer, India). This does not mean they were not advanced. Take for example the astronomic information encoded in the Cycladic Frying-pan Vessels. They also chose the position of settlements so as to align with the neighboring landscape via the rising and setting of the Sun at the equinoxes and the solstices.

 

Quote

Also... let me guess... you don't actually read ancient Egyptian and you were using the compilation translation "Pyramid Texts" from either Mercer or Budge?  I hate to sound cynical, but this is a common error made by many "armchair researchers" who haven't done a deep study of ancient Egypt.  Most of the researchers we encounter along this line don't know how much material there is that supports the current interpretation of the Pyramid Texts.  And of course these "armchair researchers" also have hundreds of different interpretations of these words --and not a single one of them matches each other or anything written by Egyptians.

 

No I don't know how to read ancient Egyptian, but how would that help me? Many are experts in this field but cannot translate what the texts say without disagreeing with other experts. How can we be sure that what they translate is  accurate when they don't really know what the ancients were thinking? In my (1st) book I use  James Allen's translation. This does not mean I consider it to be the most accurate. None the less, after reading the relative passages the reader will observe the relation to what I am proposing.

 

Quote

The story of Aegyptus is a late Greek myth - the key is in his lineage, which includes names from Hebrew (which didn't exist before 1000 BC.)  And there is no trace of a city in the neolithic period (cities have a huge archaeological footprint.)

What names from Hebrew? Are you referring to the similarity between Danaos an Dan? Mythology is not meant to be interpreted as historic fact. We really don't know the epoch of this supposed migration. But we can look into it's reference to a specific city - Argos. The hill Aspidos-Deiras of Argos was inhabited from Neolithic times(3500 BC). An organized settlement was set up during the Meso-Helladic period (2000 - 1600 BC) having an area of 20,000 square meters. But I was not referring to this city when I talked about the holy city.

The Greek Pyramids weren't built until 2,000+ years after the Egyptian pyramids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_pyramids  We know they aren't any older because there's no references to them in other works.  The stonework is pretty standard for that time period.


If the Helleniko and Ligourio pyramids were built 2,000 years after the Egyptian pyramids ~550 BC, then we would find references of them, because historians would have know who built them. They would be historical not mythical figures. If the pyramids were erected during the Mycenaean era we would probably not find reference to them in Linear B tablets because their application appears to have been confined to administrative contexts. The Gobekli Tepe findings are proof that we should not place too much value on what something "looks like". 

wiki:

There is considerable controversy about the dates of these structures, with conflict between dating based on archeological excavations and dating through what was at the time the new technique of thermoluminescence dating, Ioannis Liritzis and his team argue for an early date through five sub-projects: 1) geophysical prospection inside and around the two pyramidals at Hellenikon and Ligourio, where buried monuments were discovered, 2) these results directed the archaeological excavations carried out by archaeologist A.Sampson and archaeologists of the Archaeological Museum of Nauplion. Amongst the new finds were foundations of rooms, ceramics of Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Protochristian periods, and protohelladic II in the exterior foundations of Hellenikon above the bedrock. A comparative study of masonries was also made, 3) astronomical orientation of the long entrance corridor was found related to the rise of Orion’s belt occurring in c. 2000-2400 BC, 4) the dating of some parts of the overlying large megalithic blocks in the wall, with the novel thermoluminescence dating method of rock surfaces. Sampling was chosen for their firmness and lack of sun exposure of internal contact surfaces, by removing a few milligrams of powder from pieces in firm contact. Seven pieces gave an age range of c. 2000–2500 BC, while two ceramic sherds of non-diagnostic typology one from Hellenikon and one from Ligourio dated by TL and OSL gave concordant ages of 3000±250 BC and 660±200 BC respectively. This time frame would place construction of these structures at a time overlapping the construction of the pyramids in Egypt.


As I point out in my book the direction of the entrance corridor was not meant to define the rising of the Orion belt stars or Sirius. It is a geographic alignment not an astronomical one. On the other hand though the central Orion belt star Alnilam, the one which according to OCT relates to the Khafre pyramid and the star that is targeted by the King Chamber South air shaft would have a geometric altitude at transit on 2514 BC as observed from the Helliniko pyramid that would be equal to the latitude angle of the Helliniko pyramid.
Thermoluminescence dating places the erection of the Helliniko pyramid at the IV dynasty era.  Even if one does not agree with these findings he should ask himself, why would someone during the classical Greek era build on top of a structure securely dated to the proto-Helladic period(III-IV dynasties) with stones that were quarried at that epoch to build a pyramid that correlates to the Egyptian pyramids that were erected in the same period. And note this, not inside a town but in a remote location 8 kilometers away from Argos. What was so special about this location? Enforcing a greater pyramid plan. When? Does it matter?


As to the "encoded information" -- I also suspect that you may be someone who (like many others) simply looks at the three pyramids and ignores the 8 (built at the same time) around them and the ruined pyramid of Djedefre and the other 100+ pyramids... along with the structures that enclosed them and the buildings that stood with them.

 
In my books I looking into the planning of the main pyramids of Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre, Baka, Menkaure, and Userkaf.  In my last book I try to explain why these 8 pyramids were spilt up into different pyramid enclosures the way they were. There is more to be explained though regarding their exact placement and this will be covered in an upcoming book. In the Greek mountain to pyramid mapping one can get an idea about how the orientation of the causeways was chosen as also maybe the size and position of the temples. Just like in the case of the satellite pyramids though there more correlations that can be considered.

Humans, particularly those from civilizations that aren't very literate, don't spend time making up strange codes... the writing (which almost nobody could read) was enough of a code for anyone.  Things that are important and sacred are represented in unambiguous ways -- Greeks had groves and temples and priests and priestesses and didn't use any special codes to show where any of this was.  Likewise the Egyptians had their sacred spaces that they treated in exactly the same way.  They never encoded Abydos (one of the most sacred spaces in Egypt) or any of the other places in art or in buildings or anything else.

I don't believe that this code was thought out by the ancient Egyptians. I don't think they were able to calculate accurate mountain information. Information of distance, altitude or prominence. But some aspects or deductions of this code might have been handed down to them and other peoples by the so-called gods. The Greeks encoded information in the language using the alphabetic number values of letters(isopsephy or gematria). They also founded cities or sacred sites like Delphi based on geodetic triangulizations(isosceles triangles). The Greeks were not allowed to talk about what took place in the Mysteries(Eleusinian or Kavirian). The penalty was death. It is thus possible that certain ancient encodings were also kept secret, at least they were not revealed to the "uninitiated". I also wouldn't expect ancient Egyptian priests to reveal information about Atlantis to just anyone, Egyptian or non-Egyptian. The interesting thing about the name Abydos in Greek is that it's isopsephy value is equal to that of "planet".  I included astronomic  correlations in one of my Greek books regarding Abydos. 
 

Edited by Spiros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
On 10/30/2018 at 1:02 PM, Spiros said:

History is a kind of science. It is a social science. The fact that pyramids were built by humans, does not automatically mean that they were planned, designed, or that their construction was supervised by humans, at least the IV dynasty Egyptians. History is not autonomous like mathematics.  It relies on the findings of other sciences like linguistics, archeology, architecture, geography, etc, to build its case, to compose "what happened, by who, why, and how". It needs thus to explain the evidence. There is no way architectural wonders like the Giza pyramids were erected without the help of advanced mathematics and natural sciences.

The same applies to my house.  I have no idea who built it.  And I certainly couldn;t build it today, myself.  So it must have been aliens

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, Spiros said:

. The Greeks just like the Sumerians did not use stone that much because it was not that easy to find and quarry.

I take it you have never been to Greece?

The reason the Greeks did use stone is for exactly the reason that it was easy to find and quarry. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.